By Abu Muhammad
In ‘What I Believe’, Dr Tariq Ramadan’s latest book, he endeavours to clarify some of the misunderstood positions he holds. It is aimed at ordinary people, journalists, politicians, social workers, teachers and others, who do not have the time or perhaps sometimes the capacity to grasp the academic and philosophical language he employs in his writings. This book sets out to clarify the basic ideas which he has been advocating for more than twenty years.
This is long overdue. I have personally come across many people who attack and call Dr Ramadan and others of having deviant opinions and hence label him and the others like him of being deviant. When asked if they have read his works, the response almost always is in the negative.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Dr Ramadan, we should not let others decide our opinion of him without trying to analyse for ourselves his words from his writings. From an intellectual perspective this attitude is dishonest and lacks integrity. If one feels at ease with himself at calling other Muslims deviants, one should do so once they have read his writings (if one feels that is the right thing to do).
This is the reason why he explains he has authored this particular book, “Rather than entering my name in a web search engine (and coming up with the million links that mainly report what others have written about me) or being content with the so-called free virtual encyclopedias that are in fact so biased (like Wikipedia, where the factual errors and partisan readings are astounding), I give readers this opportunity to read me in the original and simply get direct access to my thought.”
He also tackles the accusation against him of practicing doublespeak. He explains, “doublespeak consists in saying one thing in front of an audience to flatter or mislead them, and something else, different in content, elsewhere, to a different audience or in a different language. Adapting one’s level of speech to one’s audience, or adapting the nature of one’s references, is not doublespeak. When addressing my students I use elevated language with philosophical references that they can understand; when speaking before social protagonists or manual labourers, I also use appropriate speech and illustrations; and if I speak to Muslims, my language and references also take into account their level of discourse and their universe of understanding. This is a necessary pedagogy. To avoid doublespeak, what matters is that the substance of the discourse does not change.”
This is in fact the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. He also deals with plethora of other issues such as identity, culture, religion, participation, etc. Therefore, those who are quick to label him as a deviant and with other nefarious labels should hold their tongue and read what he has to say.
He is not trying to change Islam when he talks about reform in his previous book, Radical Reform. He wishes to clarify that it is our understanding that needs to change. He says, many of our scholars have a cultural projection of Islam – meaning that they read the text with a preconceived understanding of a given verse and hadith and which is why we have in the canon of law many rulings that seem to be biased against a particular group in the community, i.e. women.
This is very important for us to comprehend. It is true that we should not approach the Qur’an with preconceived ideas and theories in order to prove and support them. However, despite every effort we exert to be objective, our understanding of the Qur’an is bound to be influenced by our own experiences. This cannot be avoided. This is what, according to Dr Ramadan has been happening over the centuries. That is why we need to reform our understanding of the texts that caters for the need and requirements of our time and context.
This is not an easy task but one that is complex and will raise much opposition since people are always comfortable with what they have been accustomed to, and change makes them scared and uncomfortable. To do this, he explains, we need experts from all fields, psychologists, scientists, politicians, teachers, to advise and work with Islamic jurists (fuqaha) to apply the texts in the current context and world – which have different needs and expectations from earlier generations.
Thus he is not changing Islam or reforming it, it is reforming our understanding, our interpretations of the principles and texts.
@Throjan
I was just giving the tafseer of your name. And I agree with submission that your words are sarcastic and hard to believe. The points you have made is giving the impression that you have extremists tendancies. Remember the prophet warned against extremism
I am one of the blog editors and i have personally had enough with certain brothers who are blog editors posing as bloggers. I know this post will probably be removed but at least my point will have been said.
[Deleted by Blog Editor]
It is important to expose these brothers and the views that they are posting on the internet. At the same time i would like to assure readers that not all members of IFE are like these brothers, there are many brothers who are sahih and do not advocate the opinions of the brothers mentioned above.
I really do hope that my post is not removed by another blog editor, and i my self would like to remain annoymous just call me exposer
Blog Editor: It is obvious you are NOT a Blog Editor. If you were you would not fear your comment being deleted.
You have slandered two brothers with your lies. We know Abu Muhammad personally, it is not who you say it is. As for commentors, we have no idea who people are, if we don’t know as Editors – it is impossible for you to know.
The only exposure you have done is exposed your own lies and disgraceful character. It is directly because of YOU and others like you who felt the need to repeat your comment, that we have now changed the comments policy so that ALL comments will now be moderated.
It is sad that you behave in this manner out of suspicion alone. There is NO WAY, you, others or even editors can know the identity of ‘commentors’ (unless they choose to reveal their identity).
Thank you for increasing our workload, we give our time voluntarily and you’ve just made our work harder. The other readers and commentors will also thank you for limiting their discussion.
We ask you never to comment here again.
wow! that waas some fast intervention/censorship brothers! this was the exposer’s post. DO NOT DELETE!!!!
[Deleted]
Blog Editor: Please read the User Guidelines. We do not tolerate slander and obvious lies. You should not be repeating comments deleted because they contained slander, there was a purpose of deleting them.
Since you believe in no censorship at all, please explain to readers why you ‘Submission’ are now using the name ‘Alpha’? Why have you used the name ‘Alpha’ to make comments which are unethical and un-Islamic (naming real people purely based on suspicion, without any evidence). If there was nothing wrong with the comments by ‘Alpha’, surely you could’ve made the comment using your normal name of ‘Submission’?
The only purpose for using another ‘name’ to the ‘normal name’ people use is to create mischief, say nasty things; or it is for the purpose of giving the impression that many different people are supporting them or think like them. All of this is unethical and un-Islamic.
We at BtL have no interest in finding out the real identity of ‘commentors’. People are free to use pseudonyms to comment anonymously or use their real names. We advise people to maintain the ’same name’ for the purpose of a meaningful discussion.
If the problem of the ’same people’, using ‘multiple names’ continues, to create mischief – we will have no other option but to change the comments policy. Only ‘registered’ people will then be allowed to comment. This would further limit discussion, and deter some visitors, readers from commenting – and we prefer not to do this, unless absolutely necessary.
Its sad we’ve allowed ourselves to derail this thread.
We should keep our comments relavent to the discussion. If a brother doesn’t answer your question, no need to keep posting asking why he hasn’t answered. If someone has an answer they’ll answer. Otherwise the lack of an answer will speak for itself.
Also, just as I find some of the brothers here are blindly accepting TR’s call for ‘reformation’ of Islam, I also find some of the brothers here are hating/disagreeing with T.Ramadan without being able to explain their reasons behind their disagreement. This only makes you seem like a ‘blind’ hater of TR.
[Deleted]
Blog Editor: Queries directed at the Blog Editorial Team should be emailed to: editor@blog.islamicforumeurope.com
It should not be left as comments, please see User Guidelines.
[Deleted] Blog Editor: Please email any queries or complaints to editor@blog.islamicforumeurope.com
Please do not post them as comments – read ‘User Guidelines’
btw, br captain… bit dissapointed that you say …
“I also find some of the brothers here are hating/disagreeing with T.Ramadan without being able to explain their reasons behind their disagreement. This only makes you seem like a ‘blind’ hater of TR.”
I refer you to points 43 87 as their objections are clearly outlined there. I’m out.
salaam.
I am very dissapointed that individuals like Abdullah, Throjan and Irrational thought have come here with preconcieved ideas and thinking. We should all come into a discussion willing to hear other opinions because they could be more correct than our points. But instead these brothers have come here believing they are 100% correct in their thinking and when anyone puts another opinion no matter how valid it is they mock them and become very rude and arrogant.
A good example is of the trechory of Throjan who has come on this blog as a decpetive person only to cause mischief. He has tried to show his support for brothers who are opposed to the authors posts and has showed his true colours. His choice of name is also showing this deception.
This chartacter has all the traits of a spy/munafiq who allies himself with muslims and then tried to wind the flames of hatred and infact being sarcastic.
Abdullah has done the same when brothers have made valid points instead of trying to countering it he throws abuse and ridicules the points. and then a new arrival Irrational thought came about to counter ratioanl thought.
Rational thought has come up with excellent points and instead to discussing it irratioanl thought has come and trying to be stupid and again ridicule the points.
An advise to these people is that you need to check your intention, did you come to this blog to try and defame, ridicule and ruin genuine discussiona and points? if that is your intention then that is very very wrong and is evil in its nature. You do not want to have a genuine discussion, check your intentions and open your hearts and this is an advise to all.
it’s funny, how editors have made accusations and ‘expositons’ of posters here unfoundedly. It has the right to stay on the blog according to them. yet when you challenge the authenticity of this claim or ask them if hussein is abdullaa or how did ‘exposer’ manage to use an avatar or how come abdullaah is able to embolden texts in his post, they immediately delete.
the deceit and the dirty tactics of the editors, their collusion with certain posters (if they are not the one and the same people) is clear for us to see. We know who these editors are, the brothers in IFE, yet we never thought so lowly of you that you would resort to these filthy tactics. You have proven to us that you couldn’t hold this discussion in person nor even online.
All of the editors should leave the islamic movement, as it was founded by banna and championed by the likes of mawdudi, qutb, ahmad yasin, abdullaah azzaam, sayid saabiq, md suroor amongst many others. You are imposters hijacking the jamaa’ah. This is because you do not follow its manhaj, its principles and its values.
Blog Editor: Although we would normally delete such malicious, childish and baseless accusations based on suspicion alone and lack of IT knowledge – we have decided not to delete it, and also decided to publish this comment unedited.
Hopefully by this we can persuade you to refrain from such obvious un-Islamic behaviour. If not, then at least you will decide this blog isn’t for you and will not comment here again.
1) On the specific allegation of whether ‘Abdullaa’ is actually ‘Hussain’ (by this we assume you mean ‘Hussain Shefaar’ an author on BtL). Previously a liar calling himself ‘Exposer’, and falsely claiming to be an Editor, categorically stated that ‘Abdullah’ WAS Hussain Shefaar.
The truth is no-one can know for sure who the ‘commentors’ are. Just as we do not know who you are, whether you are Nick Griffin or Usama bin Laden’s wife – the truth is we don’t care who people are. So without evidence we do not allow people to ‘expose’ others. This blog is not about ‘exposing people’, but to debate and discuss ideas.
Please note, since Hussain Shefaar has been named several times now, we have contacted him to see if he wants to clarify whether he is actually using the name ‘Abdullah’. Also as you are very keen to know who Abdullah is, please tell everyone who you really are. That would only be fair.
2) On your second accusation “yet when you challenge the authenticity of this claim or ask them if… or how did ‘exposer’ manage to use an avatar or how come abdullaah is able to embolden texts in his post, they immediately delete.”
Your lack of IT knowledge and how blogs work generally (not to mention lack of common sense), is never an excuse for you to make such serious and malicious allegations.
2a) Anyone, inlcuding you, can create an ‘avatar’ by signing upto a website like Gravatar (http://en.gravatar.com). As it says on the homepage there “Your Gravatar is an image that follows you from site to site appearing beside your name when you do things like comment or post on a blog.”
And what does this have to do with anything at all? How are Editors involved in some ‘deceit’ or ‘dirty tactics’, if a slanderous liar (’Exposer’) uses an avatar? You have a serious commonsense deficit.
2b) Anyone can ‘embolden‘ their comment text, they can also italicise and lots of other things using ‘html’ code.
Bold: By inserting <> at the begining of the text (word/sentence) and <> at the end, with the word strong inside the begining brackets, and the code /strong inside the end brackets – anyone can make things bold when they want to.
[I've deliberately done it in this format, otherwise the code doesn't show properly]
Italic (to empahise): Instead of strong, enter the code em inside the begining brackets and /em inside the end brackets. Note: ‘em’ is obviously short for ‘emphasis’.
Can you see a pattern developing? Hardly rocket science!
If all you wanted was to know how to do this – why didn’t you just ask someone? Or even post a comment asking someone to tell you how to do it? But instead of doing that, you make outrageous laughable accusations based on your lack of (basic) IT knowledge.
For more info just google ‘html code’ – there are many websites that can give with the codes for doing various things. This is not a secret or expensive – the information is free!
3) You said: “We know who these editors are, the brothers in IFE, yet we never thought so lowly of you that you would resort to these filthy tactics.”
We don’t understand your point here? What does it matter who the Editors are? Obviously they are from IFE – it is an IFE blog. As for the accusation of resorting to ‘filthy tactics’: your consipiracy theories based on your own lack of knowledge of IT has made you bitter and caused you to make false allegations about others.
We understand you may feel frustrated at your inability to make others understand your prespective and points – but that is no excuse to make wild allegations. You should hopefully now realise that such baseless accusations out of frustration, only makes you look very silly.
Please refrain from making such comments here ever again. There is a risk that it may be published (like this comment was) and the only result of that will be humiliation for you. For the sake of your own dignity, if you want to comment – comment on the subjects and the discussion at hand.
Credit to br. Abu Muhammad for writing this piece on the blog. It is exposing vile, intolerable Muslims amongst us, if only we really knew who they were, we could have had named and shamed them in public! This is of-course after efforts in trying to de-radicalise them!
Br Abu Muhammad, I am not quite sure if you are aware but just for your info. Prof Tariq Ramadan studied intensive Shari’ah and Usul-al fiqh under Shaykh Ali Jum’ah in Egypt. This was a course that normally takes students between 5-6 years to complete. But Prof. Tariq Ramadan completed his studies in two years. This was an extensive 15 hours a day of study for two consecutive years, this really is quite amazing. I believe Allah has blessed his time and intelligence like He has done with our predecessors. In addition to this it is also quite well known that he was mentored by his late father Dr Said Ramadan, who was a prominent intellectual and activist of the Muslim Brotherhood. His other important learning’s that some pessimists dismiss is his study of Philosophy and his PhD in Arabic and Islamic studies. Last but not least his own personal research, his experience living in the west and his extensive travel and dialogue with scholars (Shaykhs, intellectuals, academics – in whatever name you want to call them by) from the East and the West make him a damn good scholar to me and for which he has a large following amongst Muslims and non-Muslim across Europe and the Americas.
Thank you again br. Abu Muhammad for trying to convey some of the concepts that Prof. Tariq is elaborating. I will hope you will continue to write about his thoughts in this blog in the future. Believe me there are many more who may have not taken part in the comments to this blog but will have benefitted from what you have said and will encourage them to learn more about Prof. Tariq and his contribution to Islamic thought and revival in Europe and beyond.
Sorry, just one more thing to clarify, Prof. Tariq Ramadan never condemned the resistance in Palestine in fact he has confirmed many a time that the resistance in Palestine is legitimate. Izzudden, shaykh wiki or anyone else for that matter take your words back. What he disagrees with is “suicide bombing”/“martyr operations” and he condemns that. And guess what? Islam gives him the freedom to have this opinion and you the freedom to disagree with him and have your own opinion about it!
Salaam, peace to all.
Mohammed Matin
Can someone please tell me or maybe even the blog editor can tell me how can i make certain parts of my posts appear blod or italic? please let me know also how can i add an image next to my name i have seen other people do this and would like to know?
A lot of points in regards to Dr Tarik Ramadan has not been addressed such as those Izadeen has mentioned. It is especially clear that he is not qualified to do Ijtihaad or call for a suspension on hudood.
@Mohammed Matin
Jazakallahu khair for the information on Tariq Ramadan’s educational background brother Muhammad. It is good to know that Ramadan has an Islamic education but it is not enough for him to take the status of mujtahid. Below is an extract from sunniforum written by a brother called Hamza (I have mentioned the reference this time since the last time I mentioned something without a reference I was brandished as fraudster?) which explains why Ramadan is in no position to “REFORM” as he would like to call it Islam.
“Tariq Ramadan is; as he describes himself; a reformist. He believes that in order for Islam to succeed in the West, Muslims need to go back their sources and reinterpret them in the light of unprecedented realities that they face in the modern world. Classical works of Islamic law are; in his view; unsuitable for Muslims in the West because these works were influenced by the cultures that their authors lived in and will hence stifle Islamic activity in the context of Western culture. He believes that present-day scholars in the Muslim world, too, are unable to give suitable answers for Muslims in the West. Muslims in the West therefore need to acquire knowledge from scholars in the Muslim heartlands and then chart their own course by creating a “Western Islam” that will allow Muslims to maximize the contributions they make to Western society. Such reformist tendencies are contrary to classical Islam.
The methodology of traditional Islam is based on three premises:
(1) Allah has preserved his religion since the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) down to the present day. The reformist approach of “going back to the sources to correct mistakes perpetuated by Muslims for hundreds of years” goes against the divine promise, “It is we who have sent down the Remembrance, and we shall preserve it.” (15:9)
(2) Scholars are the means by which Allah preserves His religion. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) explained this by saying, “Verily, Allah does not take away knowledge by plucking it out people, but he takes it away by taking [the souls] of scholars.” (Bukhari).
(3) Sacred knowledge is based on transmission from scholar to student in a continuous chain back to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). This is what the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) meant when he said that “scholars are the heirs of prophets” (Tirmidhi): knowledge and understanding is inherited from teachers, not merely inferred through one’s own reason.”
So as we can see Ramadan’s reformist tendencies are contradictory to Islam.
I have only made one point before highlighting one issue of controversy surrounding Tariq Ramadan and that was a reply to Abdullah’s point which is below,
Abdullah says
“You have seriously misunderstood and misrepresented Ramadan with this point. He has called for a ‘moratorium’ of hudood, as you say it means suspension. Suspension in the English language does not mean abolish. Please take the time to learn the correct definition. Second you need to read his book and the actual text to find out that what you’re saying is completely false.
He has called for a suspension because it is being used to punish only the weak in society by corrupt governments and dictatorships. The powerful and princes etc are never subject to hudood, he wants a return to the rule of law – which means that all are equal under the law. Only in a society which has the rule of law can implement hudood. So please check your facts and not come here with emotional false statements. He has never denied hudood or said it is irrelevant in our time!
In terms of the principle of suspending hudood, there is already an example of this Umar (r) suspended it when there was a severe famine. Ramadan is not like Quilliam directors who do think hudood should be abolished. Please do not misrepresent people.” (Abdullah)
The main issue with this point is the necessity for the calling of the suspension. Looking at the situation the little shariah/hudood that is being implemented is better than none – some is better than none – as some can lead to complete implementation.
A good example is if you meet a Muslim who only prays jummah salah this is better than the Muslim who does not pray at all. Since that Muslim who prayers jummah has a path to which Allah can guide him (a channel) and this can lead to him eventually praying 5 times a day. The Muslim who does not pray at all has no connection at all with Allah thus making any guidance harder and less likely. You see the issue is that some is better than none.
One of the main principles of Imam Shahid Hassan Al-Banna was tadarujj (gradualism) so you cannot expect to stop all hudood and then amazingly implement the whole perfect system. You gradually implement it and currently we have some being implemented (although unfairly) so we improve the implementation and then work towards the complete implementation of the shariah/hudood.
My next point is if the hudood is being implemented unfairly then why did Tariq not say “let’s give a clear guidance on how to implement the hudood correctly so it can be done Fairley” instead of stopping it? That would be better, that way you would be calling for the better/correct implementation of it and when that has been met he can eventual call for the full implementation of the hudood across the all Muslim lands.
The only benefit that came for the call for the suspension instead of the correct implementation was it fell into the plans of the kuffar. This has helped the kuffar in their plan to destroy Islam and to prevent its spread, this is their major fear.
We all must look at ourselves and think as devout Muslims do we not want the laws of Allah implemented and for Allahs word to be supreme?
Finally to Muhammad Matin you said in your last post “Sorry, just one more thing to clarify, Prof. Tariq Ramadan never condemned the resistance in Palestine in fact he has confirmed many a time that the resistance in Palestine is legitimate. Izzudden, shaykh wiki or anyone else for that matter take your words back”
I have never mentioned anything about Palestine so why did you mention my name here, the only point I have made so far about Ramadan is on the issue of the suspension of hudood! So YOU please take your words back and stop attributing things to my name which I have never said.
You are a liar as shown from the quote above. First you plagarised – a word you don’t understand – by trying to pass off someone else words as your own. Now you finally admit it, but claim it was just a minor error with incoorect referencing.
Tomorrow Ill deal with your other incohrent points. you wait son.
I have been alerted by the blog editor that I am being accused of masquerading myself as abu muhammad, abdallah etc. Under normal circumstances I would just let it be, but I felt it important on this occasion to comment. I can confirm that I have not disguised myself as anyone on this blog: when my name appears – that’s how you know me. For indeed, why do I need to mask myself, when I have been given the opportunity to use my own space? I have already written on Tariq Ramadan and other ‘controversial’ issues using my own name – so why disguise as someone else? However, I would urge our readers and commentators to bear the following in mind in any debate and discussion:
1. Debate and question IDEAS, not the person. Come up with better IDEAS not better insults at the person you are debating with.
2. What is the purpose of guessing who the person is? Those who are writing these comments know who I am and may even meet me personally – if you want to confirm names and this will help you to understand my ideas better – then you know where to find me. We should avoid naming individuals which serves no other purpose other than character assassinations.
There is nothing like Him, yet He is the Hearing, the Seeing.
@Abdalla
Again abdullah you are just trying to divcert from the point at hand. This has been your tactic throughout its dirty and devious. You attack the person and try and discredit their points. I have not lied anywhere on this blog so you need to refrain from this as i have mentioned many times before you need to check your character you keepn on being abusive, rude and arrogant. I am trying my best here to deal with a person who is only on this blog to create mischeif since you never deal with the points at hand.
And by the way why are you calling me son, you are not my father since he was a man on intregity, humility and everyone had great repect for him. You have none of those characteristics so stop trying to ascribe to them.
Please i plead you stop behaving like an animal and discuss without being so unpleasant, i have had enough of the abuse.
thank you br shefaar.
for being more sensible in your advice, even though you are not a blog editor. As someone by the name of exposer, (and only god knows who he really is) had appeared here as an editor and raised suspicions about the insults that br abdalla above evidently makes to everyone then claiming his real identity to be hussain shefaar. i too have been accused of being someone else by the blog editor. this understandably created some concern and brothers were looking for clarification. it would be ingenuine for some on this blog to say that everybody believed that abdalla was you. that is not true.
i am glad you have been honorable to dispel this suspicion, as in the example of the prophet.
if the editor doesn’t moderate/delete this i would like to say that i no longer wish to speak about these fale allegations as i am appalled by them and by the bias of the moderators. if you moderate this, don’t cut and paste, just delete the entire thing if you have any decency left in you.
Blog Editor: We have warned you already to abide by the User Guidelines and stick to the substance. However for some reason you continue to make these silly and childish accusations of some ‘bias’ by editors against you.
We have also warned you that if you persist in making these outrageous allegations, there is a risk we will publish it fully. This would only humiliate you further. So please learn from your previous ranting, un-Islamic, baseless accussations: http://blog.islamicforumeurope.com/?p=617#comment-2723.
It seems you do not have the capacity to understand that you are only humiliating yourself. Read the other comment carefully.
izzideen said in number 44
“8. He (ramadan) condemns acts of resistance in Palestine while he contextually explains why they MAY occur.”
@m matin
you say “Prof. Tariq Ramadan never condemned the resistance in Palestine in fact he has confirmed many a time that the resistance in Palestine is legitimate… What he disagrees with is “suicide bombing”/“martyr operations” and he condemns that.”
These (suicide operations) are acts of resistance that shk qardawi considers legitimate. so clearly, ramadan condemns these acts of resistance by your own admission.
is it possible that ramadan disagrees with the concept that banna taught, the concept of tadarruj? at least in relation to the huduud?
Shaykh Wiki, on comment #54, did you not quote Izzuddeen’s 10 pointers? Did you not then say the following and I quote?
“Amazing that abdullah does not rply to this post after he contunally kept on asking the question what are the contraversial views of TR. Even though some of these point were made before now they have been reiterated everyone seems to be silent.”
I take your comment as partner in crime! I will stick to my word, while I hope I will be receiving an apology from you. More importantly you will have learnt the truth about his position on the resistance on Palestine and secondly the readers will learn you have blind hatred for Tariq Ramadan.
You also said in post #82 and I quote;
“My point was derived from the hadith that actions are judged by their outcome. The only outcome of tariq ramadans statement is that it fufills what the kuffar want….”
Where did you get that hadith? Should that hadith not be “Actions are but by intention and a man shall have what he intends..? Please do correct me.
Anyways, who said the only beneficiaries of the moratorium are the “kuffars” and they are the only ones to rejoice? That’s your opinion, right? By the way, did you ask the poor and the helpless that face the brunt of these punishments whether that statement gave them hope to receive some sort of justice?
You then go on to say;
“You will see today that many of the modernists opinions are based on getting the pleasure of the kuffar and for no other reason. Modernists are desperate to get the approval and love of the kuffar and they say whatever the kuffar want.”
This is what is despicable about how you people express yourself about people whom you disagree with. Disagree with him, refute him but why are your words so spiteful, why attribute such a scandalous behavior against him or anyone for that matter who may raise some controversy with their views?
And from everything that you are saying, it seems like you are the only one with the truth, it is only you who loves Islam and has been appointed to defend the truth!! Just grow out of it, there is no need!!
I couldnt agree with you more Hussain it is very important that we discuss the ideas and not abuse the poster by abusing him calling him a liar, fabricator, stupid, dimwit etc in an attempt to discredit his point and attack his character. So the point is never answered and it infuriates the poster. I have urged brothers before to stop the abuse but it has fallen to deaf ears
Tariq Ramadan and the moratorium issue:
What is a moratorium?
1 a : a legally authorized period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation or the payment of a debt b : a waiting period set by an authority
2 : a suspension of activity
In the context of Hudud punishment it means that this type of punishment should be suspended temporarily, not indefinatly becouse there is greater harm or injustcie if it is carried out.
the Khalifh Umar in a time of famine or drought placed a moritotirum on the cutting of hands for theft becouse the drought was forcing people to steal. This act of his established the legal principle that an islamic Khalifah or Government must “remove the Harm” before it can meet out any punishment.
This responsability also includes creating an islamic scociety [in all respects] in which a muslim can live and practice islam, no such place exists on earth today. The fitnah of riba is enough proof of this, where rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] prophesised that not one would be free from its traces.
Sayidinah Umar was extremey meticulous in has duties as a Khalif of Allah to the extent where he said “If a sheep dies on the shore of the Euphrates I fear lest Allah ask me to account for it on the Day of Resurrection.
Where is the legitimate authority?
Who has given these so called Islamic rulers of our times the permission, the right, or the freedom to come above us as rulers and decree things over us, our resources, our establishments, our freedoms, our rights? Who has this right. According to Islam, anyone who does not follow within the boundaries of Islam has no right to rule. This is a clear fact! Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never directed or declared, or demaned a specific form of government during or before his death- but the basic stands true – you pick your leader and as long as they follow Islam you help them and support them – and when the leader goes outside of Islam you support them by showing them they are wrong – and when they don’t listen and fight against you and oppress you – you basically overthrow them and pick another leader – the people are in control as long as the people follow within the boundaries of Islam. This is rather different than what the West is accustomed to in their version of “democracy.”. Islam and the way of Allah is the true democracy – because it frees from slavery of another human being, group, family, class, etc. and into the slavery of Allah (God) the Creator… what ever freedom do you need?
The wholistic notion here is not whether the hudud of Allah is correct; rather, I see brother Ramadan as noting that when and where and by whom is this sort of rulings allowed to be applied by. The overall point here is that the majority of the ruling class, ruling family, ruling person, and so called “democracies” in the Muslim world today have this problem. Where the rulers are in no way at a level or authority or have the right to rule in the first place; nor are they at the same level of their own people. At least in the western civilizations the rulers are from the people – although still not close to Islam – so why then do the so called “rulers of Islamic countries” differentiate so vastly away and divided from their own people? Have you no rationality or reason? Are you so blinded by their propaganda?
Therefore, brother Ramadan’s call for discussion must be read carefully and understood clearly. He calls for a discussion that is filled with evidence rather than general, vague, timid, confrontational, illicit, and vulgar dialogue – as is the case right now. He opens up with the fact that there are serveral “thoughts” which show many disagreements:
“Several currents of thought exist in the Islamic world today and disagreements are numerous, deep and recurring. Among these, a small minority demands the immediate and strict application of hudud, assessing this as an essential prerequisite to truly defining a “Muslim majority society” as “Islamic”. Others, while accepting the fact that the hudud are indeed found in the textual references (the Qur’an and the Sunna[2]), consider the application of hudud to be conditional upon the state of the society which must be just and, for some, has to be “ideal” before these injunctions could be applied. Thus, the priority is the promotion of social justice, fighting against poverty and illiteracy etc. Finally, there are others, also a minority, who consider the texts relating to hudud as obsolete and argue that these references have no place in contemporary Muslim societies.”
He notes:
A. A small minority who demands that strict application of hudud be applied – and their reasoning is that doing so is the essential focal point on the continued building, maintaining, and long term establishment of an “Islamic society” or civilization.
B. There exists another group that says basically that: Yes the hudud (in this case punishments) perscribed in the Quran and Sunnah are correct – no arguments there; however, these hudud can only be perscribed on the condition that the “society”, “civilization” , or nowadays “the state” or “country” have a regime in power – basically a government – that is just by nature according to what the Quran and Sunnah perscribe – and when such a government is in place – then and only then, can they have the right and authority to apply Allah’s hudud on those who are found to be guilty.
C. The last group basically claims all these hududs are obsolete and a new wave of analysis and discussion must be done to bring about new hudud (rulings,etc.)… as if Allah in all his mightiness and knowledge messed up and confided in hudud that are prone to error and fallacies due to time… (which I disagree with).
I believe this is a good discussion to have – because I believe this goes back to the root of the problem again. Take any issue facing the Muslim world and it all goes back to the root of the problem. You have to weed it out before you can begin to have any form of discussion as such – but maybe, the weeding out itself may come from discussion as such… insha Allah – set let us move forward with discussion.
Basically, his aim again is:
“It is as if one does not know, as though a minor violation is being done to the Islamic teachings. A still more grave injustice is that these penalties are applied almost exclusively to women and the poor, the doubly victimized, never to the wealthy, the powerful, or the oppressors. Furthermore, hundreds of prisoners have no access to anything that could even remotely be called defense counsel. Death sentences are decided and carried out against women, men and even minors (political prisoners, traffickers, delinquents, etc.) without ever given a chance to obtain legal counsel. In resigning ourselves to having a superficial relationship to the scriptural sources, we betray the message of justice of Islam.”
The point here is that if the ruling class were correct, they would apply the same to their own ruling class and family. Anyone claiming justice under Allah will apply the rulings to themselves before they even begin to apply on anyone else. The ruling families of today in the Arab world involve themselves in illicit sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. and they know this themselves. Yet, when they catch a lowly poor man bringing one bag of drugs into the country – the guy is executed and the ulamas clap and hail the great work of the ruling powers at hand. Yet the ruling class themselves bring in alcohol by the crates and hang out at the clubs and bars and at their leisure around the world. This is the realiy of it and those who live under these regimes can not see beyong the propaganda. Wake up.
On a very complex and higher level, one can see that the imposing of such rulings at a time when the ruling class are the MOST CORRUPT ON THIS EARTH is the highest injustice of the time and anyone with enough knowledge of this must speak out against it and demand justics. So instead of name calling people who are standing for True Islam and Justice, why don’t you go and speak against your own ruler – the reason you can’t and won’t is that you 1. do not see at all 2. if you do see – you won’t dare because they will nab you and suff you into the prisons and torture you just the same – and all the while you cling to some books and rulings of the ulamas – because it makes you “feel” more of a Muslim.
YOU GET THE POINT DUDES? (btw, I borrowed some of these points from other forums etc….just in case I don’t get blamed for fraud!)
You have shown yourself to be a unapologetic plagarist, that is why. I did not mean that I am your dad – lighten up. Calling someone ’son’ means that you think you are older than them…
anyways how do we know that your father was humble, with integreity and that everyone respected him? if you tell us who he is, maybe we will agree with you. and if he was respectful, why do you not behave like him?
@e.mam Good analysis covering the major issues. Though must confess haven’t read your comment word for word, too long dude!
Even if you didn’t mention that you got borrowed/copied some points from others or other places, it is still clear from the text that you did because you used ’speech marks’. Obvious that youre quoting others. So sure people cannot call you a fraud or plagarist.
Just one advice, if you want to highlight something use single ‘quote marks’ – and when when your quoting someone or another persons words or points use “speech marks” that way is more clear for all. at least consistency.
even if you dont remember where the quote was from, etc – as long as you indicate that its not your words , thats all that is needed. the problem with shaykh wikipedia was that he copied a comment word for word, without quote marks or any other indication that it was his words.
when it was pointed out to him that the comment was exact copy from another forum -If he made a genuine error, he shouldve just said – ’sorry should’ve made it clear wasn’t my points” that wouldve been the end of it.
But he said replied stupidly:
“Yes i did take the explanation given by Hamza in the forum wether or not i am hamza is not for you to know.
I used the argument posted by hamza since it covered the main flaws of Tariq – so do not move away from the point i made and star a personal attack again….Anyway since when is it a crime to use anothers points – the article was not copyrighted – sue me!”
That proves he doesnt understand the concept of plagarism, and because he was caught out – he became defensive and just arrogant. like a thief when caught, says ’so what’?
@e.mam
Akhi you said “the Khalifh Umar in a time of famine or drought placed a moritotirum on the cutting of hands for theft becouse the drought was forcing people to steal. This act of his established the legal principle that an islamic Khalifah or Government must “remove the Harm” before it can meet out any punishment.”
But what you fail to realise that their are conditions before any hudud is carried out which have been outlined in the quran and sunnah. And one of the conditions was the issue of desperation i.e. famine. So what Umar done was from the shariah and so umar postponed the hudud in accordance to the rules of shariah. So you cannot draw similarities to what Ramadan has said, since there is noting in the quran, sunnah or from the shabahas that say we can suspend the hudud in the manner that Ramadan has called for.
We all must work towards the estbalishment of the islamic state, shariah, khalifah if this is not in our objective then we are not upon the correct path of the prophet. Since the establishment of the deen is part of our manhaj the same manhaj of the prophet and his companions.
What ramadan is saying is working opposite to this goal that is the main problem.
@Abdalla
Akhi again you refuse to takle my points rather you abuse me. You you have forgotten is that this is a blog we are not in school/college/university so giving reference is not someting which is a must. I have never said these are my words when asked i said were it came from.
But this is all a tactic for you to not answer my points, maybe because you cannot answer them. If you do not have a response to my points then remain silent akhi as the hadith of the peophet says “speak good or remain silent”
I know me and you have not seen eye to eye and i feel you have a personal vendetta against me so i again urge you to stop attacking me as an individual please take heed to Hussain Sheefar’s naseeha.
I know i have mentioned/said many things that people might have taken offence to. so i would like to apologise and ask for your forgivenss in anything that i have said that may have hurt/offended you. I will refrain from any abusive talk and i only ask others to stop this to.
I really you take heed of this advise and move back to the discussion, i have raised some points so please tackle them instead of attacking me.
@Mohammed Matin
Muhammed yes you are right that i hilighted izzadeen’s post just so the brothers who kept on asking questions now have their answers. But in my words i only questioned ramadans opinion on hudud so far.
Since you raised the issue of palestine then yes i agree with the the post taht tariq ramadan is against the reistance in palestine. Because he has condemend the operations which is the main weapon for the resistance, he is in fact speaking against the resistance. Even Shaykh Qardawi supports the operations carried out in palestine which is opposed by Ramadan.
If you speak against the operations then you are speaking entirley against the resistance. Also this public opinion falls into the paln of the kuffar, this is exactley what they want. So why speak on these issues and cause more harm to the cause? Rather remain silent!
Finally you might not be aware but there is a hadith of the peophet on the outcome which is below,
“Actions depend upon their outcome.” [Mentioned in Bukhari]
”But what you fail to realise that their are conditions before any hudud is carried out which have been outlined in the quran and sunnah. And one of the conditions was the issue of desperation i.e. famine. So what Umar done was from the shariah and so umar postponed the hudud in accordance to the rules of shariah”
So are there any hadith or a verse which state that in case of famine the rulers can suspend the hudud?
Also, it would be appropriate to find out whether or not there needs to be a legitimate ruler for the hudud to applied. Could that be a condition?
Unfortunately I am not fully keeping up with the blog especially as it drove off on multiple wavelengths and got convoluted. But on the recent point about a moratorium, one of the conditions for ‘theft’ were not meant when some of the slave-boys of Sahabi Hatib stole; i.e. it has to be done while one has sufficiency. As one of the conditions for theft was absent, the action was therefore NOT theft and hence the hudood could not apply to the act as it was not theft in the first place. For references on this, please look up the tafsirs of the theft verses and fiqh books on the issue of theft.
That’s very different from saying that based on this one case study the khalifah Umar (r) suspended hudood in general and we have a precedence based on him to put our hudood ‘on hold’. He merely didn’t punish those boys who stole as their act didn’t really constitute theft in the legal sense.
Also, the legitimate ruler issue is similar to the issue of the imam and salatul jumu’ah (wallahu a’lam); the absence of the Imam doesn’t mean the abandonment of the act if one who can replace him can do it. Likewise one of the conditions for applying the hudood is it has to be done by the people in authority (who have the means of authority to enforce it), even though they may not be there legitimately. And them not fulfilling the entire Shariah does not mean they should abandon the parts they are enforcing, just as if in the UK they were to enforce the defence of masaajid from rascists (something which the Shariah calls for), we would not be saying ‘let’s put this on hold because the man in authority is not a legitimate one’…
But more relvantly, the issue here is if people are stealing and murdering etc on what basis are we going to abandon the hudood? If it is on the basis of Umar (r) then let us prove that the situation is similar to his one (i.e. the conditions for the crime were not met) and even then we can abandon it in those cases only like he did and not the entire penal code, otherwise, where is the proof to say we should stop the entire penal code (or those aspects mentioned by TR; corporal punishment, stoning, and death penalty)?
Secondly, in the absence of the penal code, what will you resort to? If it is oppression of the weak and dissidents/opponents then this will continue even if the penal code is dropped and you have replaced it with the non-shar’ee (man-made) code (in which case we would be asked by Allah for sure what was the reason for us replacing His law with that of another to which we must have a good answer), even if it is ta’zeer (which has basis in shariah in non-prescribed punishments). So stopping the penal system meets no genuine purpose. And if it is indeed oppression and corruption in government of their opponents, then this is in fact not implementation of shari hudood but rather them following their desires and ruling by OTHER than what Allah revealed. In which case our calls and our campaign against them should be scrutiny of their corruption and for them to rule by the hudood AS Allah revealed in the correct way and not the call to ‘suspend’. For example in the UK let’s pretend there is much corruption in the system of imprisonment; political dissisdents and the weak, poor and women are being imprisoned and never the rich or powerful. Would they put their penal system ‘on hold’ for this to be sorted out, or would they find means to sort out the corruption and the corrupted? Take the example of the mafia-era and the FBI in America for example which is a real-life case study of this.
After all, the hadith commands us to help our brother if he is the oppressor by preventing him from his oppression (in this case, the unislamic/corrupt and criminal/haram executions of the wrong people and if it is proven to be as widespread as claimed – note this is NOT the same as the Islamic penal code). At the same time we are told to uphold and command justice, and is the Islamic penal code not just?
It would be good to hear Tariq Ramadan also call for the correct and just application of the hudood (if he has done so, then please let me know), rather than falling short half-way and simply calling for a ‘temporary moratorium’ on it.
All praises are for Allah and He knows best.
The call for a moratorium of the hudud is analogy by annexation of the precedence set by sayyiduna umar (r). There are other cases in history where the hadd was not applied due to a shubhat, for example during the reign of sayyiduna ‘ali (cant remember the exact reference). One of he main condition is that there should be no ambivalences in the process and as I have shown the many doubts in my previous posts it is better to stop the killing of perhaps many innocent people. It is better to make a mistake in not implementing the hadd than to make a mistake in applying the hadd, Umar ibn Abdul-Azîz said, “Better that I should err a thousand times in pardon rather than err once in the application of a penalty.”
“Avoid (application) of hudûd where there is doubt [have to rely on the doubts]”. According to brother Ramadan there is ample doubt during our time. They are well documented by international bodies (muslim and non muslims alike).
The hudud are particulars of the legitimate ruler. These are matters of the legitimate state. If these rulers can be considered to be substitutes, then, yes, but they have to fulfil the conditions of being just. Even people within the regimes of these countries have maintained that they are unjust and violator of human rights.”
Brother Tariq Ramadan did not say that the penal code is unjust bu the implementation in our current times is unjust.
I’ll not bother with all other contradictory points!
Goood night dudes!
when i meant the rulers have ti be hust I meant tha the process has to be just and have no doubt in it
Salam Akhi Muslim i agree with your points completley. Hopefully there will be no personal insults against your character since this seems to be the norm by those who oppose your point of view.
Asslam br e.mam,
I agree with your points but I dont think people understood them!
The call for a morotorium is wise and very Islamic.
To suggest this is not Islamic is a failure to understand and acceptthe reality of Islam. Morotoriums were clearly placed by the Rightly Guided Calpihs, and more than on one occasion. The confusion of “scholars” about Hudood is coming from the lack of understanding of morotoriums as well as increased capital punishment during the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. There is an unnecessary confusion between the generic universals of the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet in comparison to the contextual particulars of the rightly Guided Scholars. This confusion should not exist, which in turn indicates that itwould be silly to continue with Hadd punishment when even our scholars are clouded in judgment.
I do not think Tariq Ramadan is saying that the Qur’an alone is somehow unclear on the matter. There is a history on Hudood that causes a lack of clarity in many scholars today.
Further, the Hadd punishment is only valid under a legitimate authority which is established to implement the governance under Shari’ah. I am not aware of ANY country coming even close to be deserving of this responsibility.
There is a need for a mammoth change in societal accessibility and acceptability of many matters that are not just the crimes itself, but things that lead to it. No person can remove Hadd punishment- it is a Command of Allah. What Allah requires of human beings is to be wise about it, as was clearly examplieifed by the Rightly Guided Caliphs….. they are called “rightly guided” for a reason.
e.mam says “It is better to make a mistake in not implementing the hadd than to make a mistake in applying the hadd, Umar ibn Abdul-Azîz said, “Better that I should err a thousand times in pardon rather than err once in the application of a penalty.”
“Avoid (application) of hudûd where there is doubt [have to rely on the doubts]”. According to brother Ramadan there is ample doubt during our time. They are well documented by international bodies (muslim and non muslims alike”
But what you fail to realise is that this is part of the law that if there is any doubt the hudud should not be carried out. So how does using this example justify the stance of Ramadan? This does not give justification for the hudud to be totally suspended, this only gives evidence for the hudud not to be carried out on an individual where there is doubt over his/her guilt. So it again goes to prove my earlier point; one, that there is no justification to call for total suspension; two, Ramadan should be calling for the correct implementation of the hudud.
The evidence you gave is what should have been mentioned by Ramadan to the governments – do not apply the hudud unless there is no doubt in the individuals crime.
Not speaking for Dr. Tariq Ramadan here, obviously, the facts are that the Rightly Guided Kulafa did remove certain punishments, temporarily, for similar reasons to today. And it is beyond the oft-quoted situation where Umar bin al-Khattab had foregone punishment for stealing.
There is evidence, for example, of adulterers NOT stoned AND not banished from the town. Both Umar (at his khilafat) and ‘Ali concurred. ‘Ali was initially hesitant but upon explaining the context of the times they found themselves in it was on a morotorium. Even if this only proves for the individual cases, as some may suggest, the widespread corruption is sufficient to expel that incoherent argument.
On the other hand there is evidence of INCREASED punishment on the Perisan alcohol “epidermic” within the Muslim population.
So, essentially there has been Qiyas-related morotoriums by the rightly guided. We can only learn from that and apply the wisdom. I totally agree that there is not an ounce of confusion on ther nature of Hadd punishment. I do not think Dr. Ramadan is referring to that at all. What I am referring to, and suspect Dr. Ramadan is as well (given he is more knowledgeable than me, at least), that due to the fact there were conditional morotoriums, scholars are quite unable to decipher through the facts, and are pretty much blinded by the emotion…. and we do not want emotion driving the wisdom behind hadd punishment.
salam
The whole arguments stand on some govts not applying hudood correctly, so the points i made before still stand:
“From what i can gather, we all agree TR is not a scholar (i’m talking in the islamic sense i.e. alim), but rather a writer and intellectual. Therefore, it is logical to say he is not at the level of mujtahid, easily. So I do not understand how he is capable of pronouncing a suspension of the hudood, when such a fatwa is surrounded by many complex issues. If he wants to adopt the science of maqaasidush sharee;ah, he must master it first, fiqh al-waaqi, usul-ul-fiqh etc etc. By his own admission, he is not a shaykh. So i beleive any reasonable, impartial, open minded br/sr will be bale to conclude that he is overwhelmingly out of depth when issuing a complicated fatwa regarding the application of sharee’ah.
His line of thinking unfortunately seems to be very amateur when explaining the resons behind this revelation despite his callibre as an academic. The argument simply put is: some people are apllying hudood unjustly, so lets remove the hudood comletely through out the whole world. The following points are where his logic fails:
1. You cannot issue a general decree on the whole world due to your sudies into some case examples eg. saudi. What if there are poeple who are apllying hudood correctly somewhere in the world, that can’t be cancelled hust because TR hasn;t heard about it.
2. If something isn’t applied correctly, you don’t suspend it. e.g. “the UK government is taxing its people harshly and forcing them into poverty. From today, i pronounce that all forms of governmental taxation in the world should be suspended”. Halarious as it sounds, i’m just applying TR’s logic to another issue.”
@qutb
Ok if we look at your argument and for arguments sake we accept your opinion. Then it is only the scholars (as they are the closest people today to the rightly guided) who are able to call or decide on a moratorium. So why is then Tariq Ramadan calling for it he is not a scholar nor is he anywhere near the level of the scholars to call for such a massive decision. Does e think the scholars are not doing a good enough job that he needs to do it for them?
Anyway this is only if we accept a moratorium which is still being debated.
An International call for Moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World
Wednesday 30th March 2005, by Tariq Ramadan
Muslim majority societies and Muslims around the world are constantly confronted with the fundamental question of how to implement the penalties prescribed in the Islamic penal code.
Evoking the notion of shari’a, or more precisely hudud[1], the terms of the debate are defined by central questions emerging from thought provoking discussions taking place between ulama’ (scholars) and/or Muslim masses: How to be faithful to the message of Islam in the contemporary era? How can a society truly define itself as “Islamic” beyond what is required in the daily practices of individual private life? But a critical and fruitful debate has not yet materialized.
Several currents of thought exist in the Islamic world today and disagreements are numerous, deep and recurring. Among these, a small minority demands the immediate and strict application of hudud, assessing this as an essential prerequisite to truly defining a “Muslim majority society” as “Islamic”. Others, while accepting the fact that the hudud are indeed found in the textual references (the Qur’an and the Sunna[2]), consider the application of hudud to be conditional upon the state of the society which must be just and, for some, has to be “ideal” before these injunctions could be applied. Thus, the priority is the promotion of social justice, fighting against poverty and illiteracy etc. Finally, there are others, also a minority, who consider the texts relating to hudud as obsolete and argue that these references have no place in contemporary Muslim societies.
One can see the opinions on this subject are so divergent and entrenched that it becomes difficult to discern what the respective arguments are. At the very moment we are writing these lines- while serious debate is virtually non-existent, while positions remain vague and even nebulous, and consensus among Muslims is lacking- women and men are being subjected to the application of these penalties.
For Muslims, Islam is a message of equality and justice. It is our faithfulness to the message of Islam that leads us to recognize that it impossible to remain silent in the face of unjust applications of our religious references. The debate must liberate itself and refuse to be satisfied by general, timid and convoluted responses. These silences and intellectual contortions are unworthy of the clarity and just message of Islam.
In the name of the scriptural sources, the Islamic teachings, and the contemporary Muslim conscience, statements must be made and decisions need to be taken.
What does the majority of the ulama’ say?
All the ulama’ (scholars) of the Muslim world, of yesterday and of today and in all the currents of thought, recognize the existence of scriptural sources that refer to corporal punishment (Qur’an and Sunna), stoning of adulterous men and women (Sunna) and the penal code (Qur’an and Sunna). The divergences between the ulama’ and the various trends of thought (literalist, reformist, rationalist, etc.) are primarily rooted in the interpretation of a certain number of these texts, the conditions of application of the Islamic penal code, as well as its degree of relevance to the contemporary era (nature of the committed infractions, testimonials, social and political contexts, etc.).
The majority of the ulama’, historically and today, are of the opinion that these penalties are on the whole Islamic but that the conditions under which they should be implemented are nearly impossible to reestablish. These penalties, therefore, are “almost never applicable”. The hudud would, therefore, serve as a “deterrent,” the objective of which would be to stir the conscience of the believer to the gravity of an action warranting such a punishment.
Anyone who reads the books of the ulama’, listens to their lectures and sermons, travels inside the Islamic world or interacts with the Muslim communities of the West will inevitably and invariably hear the following pronouncement from religious authorities: “almost never applicable”. Such pronouncements give the majority of ulama and Muslim masses a way out of dealing with the fundamental issues and questions without risking appearing to be have betrayed the Islamic scriptural sources. The alternative posture is to avoid the issue of hudud altogether and/or to remain silent.
What is happening on the ground?
One would have hoped that this pronouncement, “almost never,” would be understood as a assurance that women and men would be protected from repressive and unjust treatment; one would have wished that the stipulated conditions would be seen, by legislators and government who claim Islam, as an imperative to promote equality before the law and justice among humans. Nothing could be further from the reality.
Behind an Islamic discourse that minimizes the reality and rounds off the angles, and within the shadows of this “almost never”, lurks a somber reality where women and men are punished, beaten, stoned and executed in the name of hudud while Muslim conscience the world over remains untouched.
It is as if one does not know, as though a minor violation is being done to the Islamic teachings. A still more grave injustice is that these penalties are applied almost exclusively to women and the poor, the doubly victimized, never to the wealthy, the powerful, or the oppressors. Furthermore, hundreds of prisoners have no access to anything that could even remotely be called defense counsel. Death sentences are decided and carried out against women, men and even minors (political prisoners, traffickers, delinquents, etc.) without ever given a chance to obtain legal counsel. In resigning ourselves to having a superficial relationship to the scriptural sources, we betray the message of justice of Islam.
The international community has an equally major and obvious responsibility to be involved in addressing the question of hudud in the Muslim world. Thus far, the denunciations have been selective and calculated for the protection of geostrategic and economic interests. A poor country, in Africa or Asia, trying to apply the hudud or the shari’a will face the mobilization of international campaigns as we have seen recently. This is not the case with rich countries, the petromonarchies and those considered “allies”. Towards the latter, denunciations are made reluctantly, or not at all, despite ongoing and acknowledged applications of these penalties typically carried out against the poorest or weakest segments of society. The intensity of the denouncements is inversely proportional to the interests at stake. A further injustice!
The passion of the people, the fear of the ulama’
For those who travel within the Islamic world and interact with Muslims, an analysis imposes itself: everywhere, populations are demonstrating an increasing devotion to Islam and its teachings. This reality, although interesting in itself, could be troubling, and even dangerous when the nature of this devotion is so fervent, where there is no real knowledge or comprehension of the texts, where there is so little if any critical distance vis-à-vis the different scholarly interpretations, the necessary contextualization, the nature of the required conditions or, indeed the protection of the rights of the individual and the promotion of justice.
On the question of hudud, one sometimes sees popular support hoping or exacting a literal and immediate application because the latter would guarantee henceforth the “Islamic” character of a society. In fact, it is not rare to hear Muslim women and men (educated or not, and more often of modest means) calling for a formal and strict application of the penal code (in their mind, the shari’a) of which they themselves will often be the first victims. When one studies this phenomenon, two types of reasoning generally motivate these claims:
The literal and immediate application of the hudud legally and socially provides a visible reference to Islam. The legislation, by its harshness, gives the feeling of fidelity to the Qur’anic injunctions that demands rigorous respect of the text. At the popular level, one can infer in the African, Arabic, Asian as well as Western countries, that the very nature of this harshness and intransigence of the application, gives an Islamic dimension to the popular psyche.
The opposition and condemnations by the West supplies, paradoxically, the popular feeling of fidelity to the Islamic teachings; a reasoning that is antithetical, simple and simplistic. The intense opposition of the West is sufficient proof of the authentic Islamic character of the literal application of hudud. Some will persuade themselves by asserting that the West has long since lost its moral references and became so permissive that the harshness of the Islamic penal code which punishes behaviors judged immoral, is by antithesis, the true and only alternative “to Western decadence”.
These formalistic and binary reasoning are fundamentally dangerous for they claim and grant an Islamic quality to a legislation, not in what it promotes, protects and applies justice to, but more so because it sanctions harsh and visible punishment to certain behaviors and in stark contrast and opposition to the Western laws, which are perceived as morally permissive and without a reference to religion[3]. One sees today that communities or Muslim people satisfy themselves with this type of legitimacy to back a government or a party that calls for an application of the shari’a narrowly understood as a literal and immediate application of corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty.
When this type of popular passion takes hold, it is the first sign of a will to respond to various forms of frustration and humiliation by asserting an identity that perceives itself as Islamic (and anti-Western). Such an identity is not based on the comprehension of the objectives of the Islamic teachings (al maqasid) or the different interpretations and conditions relating to the application of the hudud.
Faced with this passion, many ulama’ remain prudent for the fear of losing their credibility with the masses. One can observe a psychological pressure exercised by this popular sentiment towards the judicial process of the ulama’, which normally should be independent so as to educate the population and propose alternatives. Today, an inverse phenomenon is revealing itself. The majority of the ulama’ are afraid to confront these popular and simplistic claims which lack knowledge, are passionate and binary, for fear of losing their status and being defined as having compromised too much, not been strict enough, too westernized or not Islamic enough.
The ulama’, who should be the guarantors of a deep reading of the texts, the guardians of fidelity to the objectives of justice and equality and of the critical analysis of conditions and social contexts, find themselves having to accept either a formalistic application (an immediate non-contextualized application), or a binary reasoning (less West is more Islam), or hide behind “almost never applicable” pronouncements which protects them but which does not provide real solutions to the daily injustices experienced by women and the poor.
An impossible status quo: our responsibility
The Islamic world is experiencing a very deep crisis the causes of which are multiple and sometimes contradictory. The political system of the Arab world is becoming more and more entrenched, references to Islam frequently instrumentalized, and public opinion is often muzzled or blindly passionate (to such a point as to accept, indeed even to call for, the most repressive interpretations and least just application of the “Islamic shari’a” and hudud).
In terms of the more circumscribed religious question, we can observe a crisis of authority accompanied by an absence of internal debate among the ulama’ in the diverse schools of thought and within Muslim societies. It becomes apparent that a variety of opinions, accepted in Islam, are whirling today within a chaotic framework leading to the coexistence of disparate and contradictory Islamic legal opinions each claiming to have more “Islamic character” than the other.
Faced with this legal chaos, the ordinary Muslim public is more appeased by “an appearance of fidelity”, then it is persuaded by opinions based on real knowledge and understanding of the governing Islamic principles and rules (ahkam).
Let us look at the reality, as it exists. There is a today a quadruple crisis of closed and repressive political systems, religious authorities upholding contradictory juristic positions and unknowledgeable populations swept up in remaining faithful to the teachings of Islam through religious fervor than through true reflection. The crisis cannot legitimize our silence. We are accomplices and guilty when women and men are punished, stoned or executed in the name of a formal application of the scriptural sources.
It leaves the responsibility to the Muslims of the entire world. It is for them to rise to the challenge of remaining faithful to the message of Islam in the contemporary era; it is for them to denounce the failures and the betrayals being carried out by whatever authorities or any Muslim individual. A prophetic tradition reports: “Support your brother, whether he be unjust or victim of an injustice.” One of the Companions asked: “Messenger of God, I understand how to support someone that is a victim of injustice, but how can I support him who is unjust?” The Prophet (peace be upon him) responded: “Prevent him from being unjust, that is you support to him.”[4]
It thus becomes the responsibility of each ‘alim (scholar), of each conscience, every woman and man, wherever they may be to speak up. Western Muslims either hide behind the argument that they are exempt from the application of the shari’a or hudud since they are “in a minority position”[5]. Their avoidance of the questions leaves a heavy and troubling silence. Or they express condemnation from afar without attempting to change the situation and influence the mentalities. These Muslim women and men who live in spaces of political freedom, who have access to education and knowledge, shoulder – in the very name of the Islamic teachings – have a major responsibility to attempt to reform the situation, open a relevant debate, condemn and put a end to injustices perpetrated in their name.
A call, some questions:
Taking into account all these considerations, we launch today a call for an immediate international moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in all Muslim majority countries. Considering that the opinions of most scholars, regarding the comprehension of the texts and the application of hudud, are neither explicit nor unanimous (indeed there is not even a clear majority), and bearing in mind that political systems and the state of the majority Muslim societies do not guarantee a just and equal treatment of individuals before the law, it is our moral obligation and religious responsibility to demand for the immediate suspension of the application of the hudud which is inaccurately accepted as an application of “Islamic shari’a”.
This call doubles itself with a series of basic questions addressed to the body of Islamic religious authorities of the world, whatever their tradition (sunni or shi’i), their school of thought (hanafi, maliki, ja’fari, etc.) or their tendencies (literalist, salafi, reformist, etc.) :
What are the texts (and what is their respective degrees of recognized authenticity), that make reference to corporal punishment, stoning and to the death penalty in the corpus of the Islamic scriptural sources circumscribed to what the specialists call the hudud? Where are the margins of possible interpretations and on which points are there clear divergences (al ikhtilaf) in the history of the Islamic law and in the contemporary era?
What are the conditions (shurut) stipulated for each of the penalties by the sources themselves, the consensus of the scholars (al ijma’) or by individual scholars through Islamic law history and jurisprudence (fiqh)? Where are the divergences on the stipulations and what “extenuating circumstances” were sometimes elaborated by religious authorities throughout history or within the different schools of thought?
The socio-political context (al waqi’) was always considered by the ulama’ as one of the conditions needed for the application of hudud. The importance of this question is such that it demands special treatment (and participation within the debate from intellectuals, notably those who are specialized in the social sciences). In which context today is it possible to apply hudud? What would be the required conditions in terms of political systems and the application of the general legislation: freedom of expression, equality before the law, public education, eradication of poverty and social exclusion? Which are, in this domain, the areas of divergence between the legal schools and the ulama’ and on what are these disagreements based?
Studying these questions are meant to clarify the terms of the debate with regards to the interpretative latitudes offered by the texts, while simultaneously taking into account the determining state of contemporary societies and their evolution. This intra-community reflection requires from the start a double understanding of the texts and contexts, in keeping solemnly with the objectives of the Islamic message. On the whole, this must allow us to respond to the questions of what is applicable (and according to which methods) and what is no longer applicable (considering the required conditions are impossible to reestablish as well as the fact that societal evolution is clearly moving away from the required ideal).
This undertaking requires, from within, rigour, time and establishing spaces of dialogue and debate, nationally and internationally, between the ulama’, Muslim intellectuals and inside the Muslim communities since this matter is not only about a relationship to the texts, but equally, to the context. In the interval, there can be no justification for applying penalties that sanction legal approximations and injustices such as is the case today[6]. A moratorium would impose and allow a basic debate to unfold in serenity, without using it as an excuse to manipulate Islam. All injustices made legal in the name of Islam must stop immediately.
Between the letter and objectives: fidelity
Some will understand this call as an instigation to disrespect the scriptural sources of Islam, thinking that to ask for a moratorium goes against the explicit texts of the Qu`ran and Sunna. Precisely the opposite is true: all the legal texts demand to be read in light of the objective intended to justify them (Al-maqasid). Foremost among these objectives, we find stipulated that the protection of the integrity of the person (an- nafs) and the promotion of justice (al-’adl) are primordial. Therefore, a literal and non-contextualized application of hudud, with no regard for strict and numerous stipulated conditions, and one which would present itself as being faithful to the teachings of Islam, is in fact a betrayal if according to the context, for it produces an injustice.
The caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab established a moratorium towards thieves when he suspended the application of the punishment during a famine. Despite the Qur’anic text beingvery explicit on this, the state of the society meant it would have been an unjust literal application: they would have castigated poor people whose potential theft would have been for the sole purpose of surviving in a state of absolute poverty. Therefore, in the name of absolute justice demanded by the global message of Islam, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab decided to suspend the application of a text: keeping with the literalist interpretation would have meant disloyalty and betrayal of the superior value of Islam that is justice. It is in the name of Islam and in the understanding of texts that he suspended the application of one of these injunctions. The moratorium finds here a precedent of the utmost importance.
Reflection and necessary reform within Muslim majority societies will not occur but from within. It is for Muslims to take up their responsibilities and set in motion a debate that opensan intra-community dialogue, while refusing the continued legalizedinjusticesin the name of Islam, i.e. in their name. An endogenous dynamic is imperative
This does not mean that the questions put forward by non-Muslim intellectuals or citizens should be dismissed. On the contrary, all parties must learn to decentre themselves and move towards listening to the other, to the other’s points of reference, logic and their aspiration. For Muslims, all queries, from their co-religionists or women and men who do share their religious conviction, are welcome. It is for us to make use of these questions as a spark of dynamism to our thoughts. This is how we can remain faithful to the justice demanded by Islam while taking into account also the demands of the contemporary era.
Conclusion
This call for an immediate moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty is demanding on many fronts. We are defining it as a call to consciousness of each individual so that she/he realizes that Islam is being used to degrade and subjugate women and men in certain Muslim majority societies in the midst of collusive silence and chaotic judicial opinions on the ground. This realization implies:
- A mobilization of ordinary Muslims throughout the world to call on their governments to place an immediate moratorium on the application of hudud and for the opening of a vast intra-community debate (critical, reasonable and reasoned) between the ulama, the intellectuals, the leaders and the general population.
- Taking the ulama to account so that they at last dare to report the injustices and instrumentalization of Islam in the field of hudud and, in the name of fidelity to the Islamic texts, to put out a call for an immediate moratorium emulating the example of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab.
- Promoting education of Muslim populations so that they go beyond the mirage of the formalism and appearances. The application of the repressive interpretations, measures and punishment does not make a society more faithful to the Islamic teachings. It is more the capacity to promote social justice and the protection the integrity of every individual, woman or man, rich or poor, that determines a truly authentic fidelity. The priority, according to the norms of Islam, is given to the protection of rights not to administering punishments which are meant to be implemented under strict and conditioned exceptions.
- This movement for reform from within, by the Muslims and in the name of the message and reference texts of Islam, should never neglect listening to the surrounding world as well as to the inquiries that Islam raises in non-Muslim minds. Not to concede to responses from “the other”, from “the West”, but, in order to remain, in its mirror, more constructively faithful to oneself.
We urge all of those that take heed to this call to join us and make their voices heard for the immediate suspension of the application of hudud in the Muslim world so that a real debate establishes itself on the question. We say that in the name of Islam, of its texts and of the message of justice, we can no longer accept that women and men undergo punishment and death while we remain utterly silent, as accomplices, through a process which is ultimately cowardly.
It is urgent that Muslim throughout the world refuse the formalist legitimization of the teachings of their religion and reconcile themselves with the deep message that invites towards spirituality, demands education, justice and the respect of pluralism. Societies will never reform themselves by repressive measures and punishment but more so by the engagement of each to establish civil society and the respect of popular will as well as a just legislation guaranteeing the equality of women and men, poor and rich before the law. It is urgent to set in motion a democratization movement that moves populations from the obsession of what the law is sanctioning to the claim of what it should protect: their conscience, their integrity, their liberty and their rights.
[1] A concept which literally means “limits”. In the specialized language of Muslim jurists, (fuqaha’), this term is inclusive of the punishment which is revealed in the application of the Islamic Penal code. Shari’a, literally ‘the way to the source” and a path to faithfulness, is a corpus of Islamic jurisprudence the in-depth definition of which is beyond the scope of this paper. Shari’a has sadly been reduced to legalistic formulae of a penal code in the minds of many, Muslims and non-Muslim alike
[2] Prophetic tradition: texts which report what the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) did, said or approved of during his lifetime.
[3] In Muslim countries, laws that we see as being ” borrowed from the west ” are often interpreted as tools by dictatorial governments to mislead and legitimize their autocratic character, and more importantly, to promote a westernized culture and morals.
[4] Hadith reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim.
[5] The argument is weak and dangerous as it tacitly accepts the application of hudud within today’s societal context as ” Islamic ”
[6] If ever in doubt, all circumstances require the benefit of the doubt towards the accused according to a legal universal principle (acknowledged from the start by the tradition of Islamic jurisprudence)
Source: Tariq Ramadan
Assalamu Alaikum brothers and sisters,
I pray you are all well.
Masha’Allah, I am really benefiting from these discussion, may Allah reward you.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the actual report and the subsequent discussion Dr Tariq ramadan had with shaykh ali jumah of egypt. Anyways, keep uo the good work and please try and maintain the adab.
http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article323
Wassalam
I would like to re-mention my old post which shows that Ramadan is in no position to “REFORM” the deen.
“Tariq Ramadan is; as he describes himself; a reformist. He believes that in order for Islam to succeed in the West, Muslims need to go back their sources and reinterpret them in the light of unprecedented realities that they face in the modern world. Classical works of Islamic law are; in his view; unsuitable for Muslims in the West because these works were influenced by the cultures that their authors lived in and will hence stifle Islamic activity in the context of Western culture. He believes that present-day scholars in the Muslim world, too, are unable to give suitable answers for Muslims in the West. Muslims in the West therefore need to acquire knowledge from scholars in the Muslim heartlands and then chart their own course by creating a “Western Islam” that will allow Muslims to maximize the contributions they make to Western society. Such reformist tendencies are contrary to classical Islam.
The methodology of traditional Islam is based on three premises:
(1) Allah has preserved his religion since the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) down to the present day. The reformist approach of “going back to the sources to correct mistakes perpetuated by Muslims for hundreds of years” goes against the divine promise, “It is we who have sent down the Remembrance, and we shall preserve it.” (15:9)
(2) Scholars are the means by which Allah preserves His religion. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) explained this by saying, “Verily, Allah does not take away knowledge by plucking it out people, but he takes it away by taking [the souls] of scholars.” (Bukhari).
(3) Sacred knowledge is based on transmission from scholar to student in a continuous chain back to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). This is what the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) meant when he said that “scholars are the heirs of prophets” (Tirmidhi): knowledge and understanding is inherited from teachers, not merely inferred through one’s own reason.” (Hamza sunniforum)
It is very difficult to keep up with this discussion because of the different issues and the discussion moves on very quickly.
I would like to go back to the central allegations against Tariq Ramadan:
1) That he isn’t a scholar, and therefore by implication he has not right to call for a moratorium on hudood etc,
2) He is somehow ‘controversial’ with deviant opinions on Hijaab and Palestine etc.
As Mohammed Matin as clarified Dr Ramadan has Ijaza from Shaykh Ali Jumuah of Egypt. Plus his various other educational achievements. So even if he does not call himself a shaykh – he is more than qualified to be a mujtahid.
AND if Professor Tariq Ramadan cannot do ijtihaad and call for a moratorium – how is it possible for all his critics here on this blog, to go into so much detail and refute exactly why the moratorium is wrong, what conditions have to be met etc etc.
NO-ONE has yet quoted another known scholar who has refuted tariq Ramadan. Instead we have many google scholars here you are vehemently refuting tariq ramadan in minute detail. Isn’t that a basic contradiction.
SO I put it to all. Whether tariq is a mujtahid or not should not be a reason to say must be wrong in his call for moratorium. If being a mujtahid is the requirement to make an Islamic statement – then everyone else’s rfutation of him is equally wrong because no-one here is a recognised mujtahid! Get me dudes?
So lets stick to the substance and not try to say he must be wrong cuz he aint a scholar!
(Also remember we do not have a clergy in islam, anyone can provide analysis or even opinions – and if they’re wrong, or not knowledgeable enough, they will be easily found out!)
So on the subject of whether his call for a moratorium is correct or incorrect. A mujtahid gets one reward if his ijtihaad (effort) is correct, if he is right – he gets two rewards. Only Allah knows for certain which conclusions are right!
He calls for moratorium, others say its better to to call for proper implementation of hudood. both sides have well argued points (obviously each side think the other is wrong). Only Allah knows which side is correct ultimately. The mujatids on both sides will get at least 1 reward for their ‘efforts’ (the meaning of ijtihaad).
So I don’t understand how this simple matter becomes an opportunity for people to slander and hate TR and debase his intentions that all he wants to do is please kuffar etc etc?
On the other question of niqaab. Its very clear he doesn’t think it fard, he thinks only the hijaab is fard. how is that deviant or controversial? Niqaab is matter of difference of opinion – he can follow that opinion and others can follow another.
Palestine has already been clarified – if he thinks martydom operations are wrong. That Palestinians must use other ways to resist than this tactic – that is his opinion. he has a right to it! other may disagree and they have a right to do that. only allah knows who is actually correct.
(Already we said the question of whether he is a mujtahid is irrelevant, that point is only raised by people who cannot argue against him, and because they cannot they try to find a way to silence him. A bit like how America wanted to declare war on iraq after 9/11 – and because they couldnt argue it funded alqaeda – they argued that Iraq was in technical breach of another resolution!)
SO I again ask – what is it that makes people so hate TR and call him controversial or deviant and all the other labels?
My above post clarifies that Ramadan cannot reform the religion as it goes against the inheritence.
Also we discussed the issue before that he is not a scholar, because an individual is only recognised as a scholar when ANOTHER SCHOLAR ENDORSES him as one. Please name me some scholars who have said TR is a scholar?
And btw what is with this whole “DUDE” thing abdullah you and e.mam keep on mentioning it, must run in the blood?
So TR is not qualified to be a mujtahid!
Dudes, look at the whole picture, “It is as if one does not know, as though a minor violation is being done to the Islamic teachings. A still more grave injustice is that these penalties are applied almost exclusively to women and the poor, the doubly victimized, never to the wealthy, the powerful, or the oppressors. Furthermore, hundreds of prisoners have no access to anything that could even remotely be called defense counsel. Death sentences are decided and carried out against women, men and even minors (political prisoners, traffickers, delinquents, etc.) without ever given a chance to obtain legal counsel. In resigning ourselves to having a superficial relationship to the scriptural sources, we betray the message of justice of Islam.”
Good point abdallah, m.matin mentioned his qualification. He did not receive his education from wikipedia or blogs!
@Abdalla
there may have been many scholars who opposed this call but most of them are under these illigimate regimes. so no luck there!
@e.mam
Just by mentioning his education does not make him a scholar. So again please tell me which scholars have endorsed TR as a scholar? I am still waiting!
@Shaykh Wiki
arent sunniforum a soofi site? the inheritance of knowledge hamza refered to can be also applied to their tariqas and dancing. They believe that they inherited these from the sahabas. I may be wrong!
@Shaykh Wiki
which scholar gave you ijaza to talk about ijtihad and call people deviants?
@e.mam
just because the forum is sufi (which i actuially do not know if it is) does not mean the bloggers are sufi? The inheritence of dancing is not from the sahabas that is incorrect as they have no jstified evidence to come to this opinion. So please do not divert from the point. The scholars we have today are the inheritors of the prophet end of argument. TR is not a scholar end of argument. Since TR is not a scholar he cannot make ijtihad end of discussion.
please stop tyring to derail the discussion. Stick to the point and answer my points if you cannot stop your smart remarks you are just making yourself look silly.
so…
syed qutb is a mujtahid? he may declare takfeer on the whole ummah, that is his opinion and he is entitled to that. actually, 1 reward for his ijtihad.
@Shaykh Wiki
yes they are soofis (to my knowledge).
The point is akheee, those matters are very vague. Even br tariq would say the same thing in vague terms even the soofis, salafees, ikhwanees and others say this…you get it dude,
and i am not trying to derail the discussion…carry on dude,,oops sorry akheee
As I have said before – do not bring up the subject of whether he is a scholar or not. That is not an issue – debate the ideas and content.
If he wasn’t a scholar, hence he cannot say what he said – none of you are in a position to refute him giving your ‘Islamic reasons’. These reasons are effectively also verdicts – and all here are less knowledgable than TR.
As for your oft repeated point:
“Classical works of Islamic law are; in his view; unsuitable for Muslims in the West because these works were influenced by the cultures that their authors lived in and will hence stifle Islamic activity in the context of Western culture. He believes that present-day scholars in the Muslim world, too, are unable to give suitable answers for Muslims in the West.”
What’s wrong with this statement? Isn’t that a statement of fact, that every scholar works within his particular circumstances, how can the fiqh of another scholar be copied exactly in the west and our age of techology etc. Isn’t that the reason why every generation of muslim scholars produced their own work, wrote their own books of fiqh etc?
If the opinions of the past scholars was enough – we would’ve stopped with the salaf. surely all the knowledge of hadith, quran and tafseer was codified, categorised and establised very early on. BUT no every generation of scholars learned from their teachers and made their own ijtihaad.
“He believes that present-day scholars in the Muslim world, too, are unable to give suitable answers for Muslims in the West. Muslims in the West therefore need to acquire knowledge from scholars in the Muslim heartlands and then chart their own course by creating a “Western Islam” that will allow Muslims to maximize the contributions they make to Western society. Such reformist tendencies are contrary to classical Islam.”
Again a statement of fact – that in many cases scholars from Muslim countries do not have answers for our situation. TR propposes an old idea called learn knowledge (quran, tafseer, hadith, ulul fiqh etc) and then apply that knowledge to do ijtihaad and come up with our own solutions in the west.
HOW IS THAT CONTRARY TO CLASSICAL ISLAM? THAT IS EXACTLY ACCORDING WHAT CLASSICAL SCHOLARS DID: Imam Shafi’i didnt just change his fiqh when he went to Egypt, he also changed his Usul (from which he altered his fiqh)! What a radical guy!
As for the method of ‘tradtional islam’. You should understand that is code for sufis! The general princple is to estabish the authenticity of knowledge and verification of it. ‘tradtionally’ it was done through the method of teacher to student (ijzah). it is now done thruogh universities as well – btw madina uni give out degree certificates not personal ijazas!
I say this is sufi code – because they reject this ‘new method’ and say a shakyh must have personal ijaza. hence they reject al-albani who was mostly self-taught!
Conclusion: your methodly of ‘traditional islam’ has nothing whatsoever to do with TR being a reformist! I’m assuming this hamza is a sufi, who rejects TR because he didn’t study under traditional scholars (according to him).
SO AGAIN WHY IS TR controversial and or deviant?
Shaykh Ali Jumuah must have given him Ijaza to do ijtihaad. Plus his phD in Islamic studies is Ijaza (if median uni can do it why not western uni which have muslim examiners).
We do not need to be scholars to give opinions – that is the whole point of no clergy in Islam!
On the issue of he has no right to ‘reform’ islam. werent hasan albanna and maududi reformers? were they not condemned by the sufis (which they came from) and the salafis and tabligis – who accused them of trying to reform the deen???
SO AGAIN PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TR is controversial or deviant? what exactly has he done or said that is out of Islam. beyond the pale?
Those people who use the logic that even if the rulers are illigimate and if they apply some rules it will be sufficient. When we know that most of the rulers and the system is unjust and corrupt and not Islamic why should them applying some rules be acceptable? Let me use your logic – the u.k gov laws agrees with some aspect of islaic law, does that make it ok? You see, these are state related matters and they need proper rules and systems which we do not have in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan….the hudud are not like prayer, zakat etc, you dnt need a ruler to do that. Imaam ibn taimiya said the ruler i.e, the sultan implements the hudud.
or is that irrational logic?!
@Abdalla
“SO AGAIN WHY IS TR controversial and or deviant?”
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1162385853747&pagename=Zone-English-Euro_Muslims%2FEMELayout
@irrational logic
your argument is irrational. please clarify.
@abdullaah
please explain how TR is a mujtahid? bring forward evidence to substatiate your claims.
he said that niqab isn’t even islamic. even though the wives of the prophet practiced this from the quran. v CONTROVERSIAL opinion, if not rejected. said that a million times now.
he doesn’t support the view of the movement and that of dr qaradawi when it comes to resistance in palestine/suicide ops. if you are a movement member, why do you promote this person?
muslim and many others have said, TR called for a temporary ban on hudood when he should have criticised the saudi regime for their injustice, and for their unfair implementation of the ‘SAUDI’ penal code (not sharee’ah) which incorporates aspects of the hudood. If implemented unfairly, it cannot be referred to as sharee’ah, despite how many time TR and the saudi govt call it sharee’ah. V controversial!
br abdullaah, please stop pretending that someone said that TR is ‘outside the pale’. This is disingenuous as nobody said that. if someone called him a deviant, please direct it to that particular individual as opposed to asking everyone. as it creates a non issue.
based on the example cited from umar ra. Where is the famine in saudi arabia today that would justify the suspension of the hadd for theft?
also, where are the justifications in accordance to the evidence of umar that he suspended the ENTIRE justice system on punishable crimes such as rape, murder, fraud, terrorism, etc etc?
Sayyiduna umar also issues the verdict that during the year of the drought people did not have to give charity for their sheep and goats because of the dry land. The famine in Saudi Arabia is the injustices that are taking place there. It is better to err a thousand times in pardon (not implement the hadd on a person) than to err in in the penalty.
Lets look at the whole picture, “It is as if one does not know, as though a minor violation is being done to the Islamic teachings. A still more grave injustice is that these penalties are applied almost exclusively to women and the poor, the doubly victimized, never to the wealthy, the powerful, or the oppressors. Furthermore, hundreds of prisoners have no access to anything that could even remotely be called defense counsel. Death sentences are decided and carried out against women, men and even minors (political prisoners, traffickers, delinquents, etc.) without ever given a chance to obtain legal counsel. In resigning ourselves to having a superficial relationship to the scriptural sources, we betray the message of justice of Islam.”
@Submission Hold
“please explain how TR is a mujtahid? bring forward evidence to substatiate your claims.”
Read my comment 156: “Shaykh Ali Jumuah must have given him Ijaza to do ijtihaad. Plus his phD in Islamic studies is Ijaza (if median uni can do it why not western uni which have muslim examiners).
We do not need to be scholars to give opinions – that is the whole point of no clergy in Islam!”
Submission, you are also not in a position to refute his claims since you are not a mujtahid!
“he said that niqab isn’t even islamic. even though the wives of the prophet practiced this from the quran. v CONTROVERSIAL opinion, if not rejected. said that a million times now.”
You are obviously not aware of the differences of opinion on Niqab. You quote Qardawi below, saying TR doesn’t support Qardawi on Palestine issue. Qardawi has same opinion on Niqab – that is it not fard for Muslim women. IT WAS only fard for prophet’s wives. YOU can take the view that it was fard no problem with that!
The only controversial opinion is yours! that somehow he having this opnion on niqab is controversial! In islam this is a matter of iktilaaf!
“he doesn’t support the view of the movement and that of dr qaradawi when it comes to resistance in palestine/suicide ops. if you are a movement member, why do you promote this person?”
And so what if he doesn’t support qardawi’s opinion on palestine? its not fard to support the correctness of using martyrdon operations! please learn what iktilaaf is.
So a ‘movement’ member is not allowed to support non-movment members? why then do you support haitham al-haddad and others who reject the Islamic movement and disagree with what its about?
I have no interest in promoting TR (even if i did, thered be nothing wrong with it!) – I JUST don’t like people misrepresenting people. For some reason you wan to silence TR – why?
“muslim and many others have said, TR called for a temporary ban on hudood when he should have criticised the saudi regime for their injustice, and for their unfair implementation of the ‘SAUDI’ penal code (not sharee’ah) which incorporates aspects of the hudood. If implemented unfairly, it cannot be referred to as sharee’ah, despite how many time TR and the saudi govt call it sharee’ah. V controversial!”
You need to read my commnents and others comments, do not just keep on repeating parrot fashion the same old thing! the discussion has moved on.
I said there are two sides to that argument: a moratorium on hudood OR better implementation of hudood. obviously both sides will disagree. only allah knows for sure who is actually correct. all we know is that both sides with get 1 reward for their effort (ijtihaad).
“br abdullaah, please stop pretending that someone said that TR is ‘outside the pale’. This is disingenuous as nobody said that. if someone called him a deviant, please direct it to that particular individual as opposed to asking everyone. as it creates a non issue.”
If you don’t understand rhetorical questions, please do not reply to me.
The only problems seems to be that you feel TR is controversial – when actually the reality is you just have differnt opinions on some issues (niqab etc). Someone having different opinion is NOT controversial – its called iktilaaf!
Please learn this and do not keep on making illogical, baseless points. Remember your accusations and rantings were pointed out by editor???
remeber, you are the only one on this blog who brands people liars, morons or backward/stupid. your double speak is clear for all to see.
btw, i don’t support h haddad. you make baseless accusations. getting paranoid.
the discussion has gone in circles, not forward because of you who twists peoples’ words. e.g. saying niqab is not fard, is not the same as saying that niqab is ‘un islamic’ as TR DID say. please provide reference that dr qardawi says niqab is ‘un islamic’. otherwise, do not brand dr qardawi with the same brush.
an ijaaza in what? give reference! u may be branded as afraudster by your own rules. ijaaza in sharee’ah, usool uddeen, fiqh, hadeeth, tafseer? from a western uni? no, islamic studies. this doesn’t make him a mujtahid. move on. don’t chase your tail.
please, there are rejected opinions not considered by ikhtilaaf. e.g. you cannot present a bid’ah (not ramadans view) and justify it as ikhtilaf. that’s a cheap trick. “it’s all ikhtilaf.” err, no it aint.
“Submission, you are also not in a position to refute his claims since you are not a mujtahid!” what nonsense! to state the obvious and well principles of the religion is not called ijtihad. please be humble and go back to study. if you do not know what is ijtihad, please do not contribute here.
br e.mam… “It is better to err a thousand times in pardon (not implement the hadd on a person) than to err in in the penalty.” this is a general view when applying sharee’ah, huduud, famine or no famine. it means, if there is any doubt in a persons ‘guiltyness’, then it is better to not ‘execute’ him as he may just be innocent.
also, please stop referring to the corrupt law of the saudi regime as sharee’ah. just cos TR thinks so doesn’t mean it is. it is one of the MANY reasons that his argument doesn’t stand.
if you criticise saudi law, do that. but don’t then call on an international ‘indefinate’ suspension in the sharee’ah.
CALL FOR A PERMANENT BAN SAUDI INJUSTICE!
@submission hold This Submission is just full of hate, doesn’t know how to argue. He has already been humiliated by the Editors – and now has lashing out wildly at everyone else that criticises his comments.
I’m going to ignore him. Discussing with him is useless.
Please do not speculate “Shaykh Ali Jumuah must have given him Ijaza to do ijtihaad” give me facts. Any an Ijaza could have been given on recitation of quran – so please tell me what the ijaza was for before speculating it was for ijtihad.
Also you said “As I have said before – do not bring up the subject of whether he is a scholar or not. That is not an issue” But abdukllah this is part of the issue the first point being he is not a scholar, second being he cannot be a mujtahid, third being what he is calling for without correct basis.
So stop moving away from the pioint each issue is interlinked.
@Shaykh Wiki So that’s what is boils down to – that he cannot say anything because he ‘isn’t a scholar’!
People say yes they agree that Islam doesn’t have a clergy – ie we do not need to be priests do talk on and analyse theological issues – BUT then they say you have to be a shaykh or mujtahid to do that!
What a nonsense and contradiction. ANYONE can talk on any issue if they feel they want to. That’s what it means by no-clergy.
BUT equally if they they’re incomptentent or not knowledgeable, it will become obvious in their arguments and words!
(Only in the case of official positions – like Imam, judge etc, then some test / qualification needs to be done to get a job. otherwise all are free to discuss and debate.)
So again let’s talk about the content of his speech and not whether he has a right to make that point. people only mention he’s not a scholar when they cannot debate the ideas. and if that’s the only criticism you have of him then you should stop here.
No you seem to have missed the point you do not have to be scholar to talk about the deen. But when you make an international call for suspension then that is done by a mujtahid/scholar of which TR is neither. So stop missing the point, the first problem is that, the second is what is has said. Which has been argued but you seem to have missed it, many points have been raised about the issue and yet you go on and say “people only mention he’s not a scholar when they cannot debate the ideas” Have you missed all the points in posts number 130, 135, 137, 162?
Why are people stuck in the literal understanding of sayyiduna umar’s actions – look at the whole picture. Any government has to make the environment conducive so everyone is able to stay away from stealing and other deeds.
Br Ramadan describes the present, where the instrumentalization of the Sharia penal code has led to such widespread destruction of and injury to innocent human lives, as a “state of necessity.” He says that not only are the basic conditions of justice—Islamic government—absent in the West, they are also lacking throughout the wider Muslim world. Indeed, such a government has not ruled in the Muslim world since at least the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 or by some accounts, even earlier. What’s more, in this post-Caliphate age, the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence have not settled the question as to what new conditions are required for the proper application of the hudud: “positions remain vague and even nebulous, and consensus among Muslims is lacking…”
Even of you persist in saying that he should of called for the governments to apply the whole shariah then that is a matter of what is better in terms of dawa etc. It still does not negate the basic reason of his call.
What emerges from this dispute between Ramadan and other scholars who wrote against him for this call is ultimately a debate over ijtihad or, more precisely, how to define the key criteria for its use—“necessity,” and the concept of Muslim “public interests.”
This is a debate that turns on br Ramadan’s analysis—that is, whether in fact a “state of necessity” exists in the Muslim world, and second, whether addressing this necessity constitutes a legitimate public interest or benefit to the Muslim Nation as a whole. Some scholars, such as al-Alwani, simply rejected Ramadan’s analysis, saying it contained “false allegations” against the Muslim Nation. Others, such as Shaykh Ali Juma, Egypt’s Grand Mufti and Ramadan’s former teacher, ruled that the matter of the application of the hudud was simply “not an urgent one” for the Muslim Nation, “and that it does not rank first among our priorities today.” “On the contrary,” the Mufti said, concluding his decision, raising the issue of the hudud at this time, and in the public manner in which Ramadan raised it, was “more harmful than profitable.”
Again – that is a matter open to debate. One scholars jusristic preference will differ from another.
@e.mam
You said “One scholars jusristic preference will differ from another.” But TR is not a Scholar?
Intresting
Thanks for the link Captain. This is the most useful analysis so far! For those who want to see a fair but critical review of TR on the moratorium should read that article – instead of giving out silly and google scholar opinions here.
The last comment on that article is so true: “While it is likely that Ramadan’s call will be welcomed and manipulated by the West, in the Muslim world it is expected to generate little more than vociferous verbal assaults on Ramadan, and a heated, ultimately fruitless debate.
Ed Hussain and others, see this as support for ‘abolishing’ hudood (manipulated by the West) And the Muslims are engaged in vociferous verbals on TR! And a heated but fruitless debate! My God this woman was so accurate in her description.
That article quotes many scholars and thinkers. Most of whom diagreed with the call for a moratorium. BUT none of them said “TR cant say that – he’s not a scholar”
In fact one of them (a scholar) calls TR a scholar!: “When this call comes from a respectable scholar like Dr. Tariq Ramadan, it may encourage others to disrespect the laws of Allah,” Muzammil H. Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council of North America and former President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)”
They did what all ‘real’ scholars and learned people do – which is debate and discuss the actual issue. Most of them concluded that TR call is wrong.
I agree with them that it would’ve been better to call for better implementation of hudood than call for moratorium.
But in his call he raised a few good issues for us all to think about:
1) the dodgy implementation of huddood which unfairly targets the poor and women etc.
2) that sharia is not just about hudood as many muslims seem to conclude, and only pay lip service to other parts – this is the pitfall of the west they see shaira as hudood only.
3) he raises the issue of huddood and its purpose (maqasid) – that it isnt just about punishment, sharia is about creating a just society.
So it was good he raised the issue, even if his conclusion was wrong on this issue(in my opinion). he gets 1 reward for effort!
calling for a mortarioum was certainly emtoive issue, hence controversial. but he has done nothing wrong. he had a right to say whatever he did. noone quoted in that article condemned him and said he has not right to speak (cuz he aint a scholar) – so who are we to make this a condition?
“I agree with them that it would’ve been better to call for better implementation of hudood than call for moratorium.” – Abdallah/Abdullah
Great, so let’s put this to rest.
@Abdalla
Thank you for that comment.
Br Ramadan published rejoinders to several of his Muslim scholars on his personal website. Responding to the first broad set of charges leveled against him—that he had chosen to selectively cancel the Sharia; that his call for a moratorium was “juristically baseless” and “unfounded innovation”— br Ramadan wondered whether his detractors had taken the time to read the text of his call with any care. A moratorium, after all, is not a ban—and br Ramadan has consistently argued (and very much to the chagrin of his non-Muslim boosters) that the Sharia penal code is an essential and irrevocable part of the Islamic religion.
Moreover, whereas some secular Muslims argue that the hudud are historic and even barbaric relics with no relevance to modern life, Ramadan insists the selective cancellation, or “rational abrogation,” of the Sharia penal code is not his personal intention. Rather, he seeks to demonstrate that the proposal for a moratorium is in fact not “juristically baseless,” but supported by the same principles of jurisprudence that have been regularly employed by mainstream scholars who at this instance seem to oppose. In essence, it can be concluded that they were challenging the way in which he has made the call but the actual call and the juristic basis upon which made the call was right. They did not delve into the jurisprudent arguments – did they?
On the issue of whether other scholars have stated br Tariq is a scholar, you have the following endorsement from a scholar, “When this call comes from a respectable scholar like Dr. Tariq Ramadan, it may encourage others to disrespect the laws of Allah,” Muzammil H. Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council of North America and former President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)”
Anyways, this is dragging. Why don’t we agree to disagree then?
khalaas. we shall agree that you have AGREED. maashaa allaah. abdallah says
“I agree with them that it would’ve been better to call for better implementation of hudood than call for moratorium.” good.
“calling for a mortarioum was certainly emtoive issue, hence controversial”
ISNA president, “When this call comes from a RESPECTABLE SCHOLAR like Dr. Tariq Ramadan, it may encourage others to DISRESPECT THE LAWS OF ALLAH,”
I think he meant to say that he is a scholar in the ‘intellectual’ sense.
Shaykh Ali Juma, Egypt’s Grand Mufti and Ramadan’s former teacher, THE ONE WHO MADE HIM A ‘MUJTAHID’ SAID “(moratorium on hudood) which Ramadan raised it, was “more harmful than profitable.”
Again you insist on this petty issue! How do you know what what the president of fiqh council of NA meant? have you asked him? did he personally tell you perosnally that he meant intellectual when he called TR a ’scholar’? you just don’t know do you?
You have an irrational objective of saying he isn’t a scholar/mujtahid.
All the eminent scholars. thinkers and others quoted in that article – none of them questioned his right to make the argument. NO ONE said he isn’t a scholar therefore he can’t say it. ALL OF THEM just talked about the issue. That is the proper and only way.
We already agreed that there is no clergy in islam – therefore to make an analysis, etc – one does not need to be a scholar/mujtahid. So stop bringing this issue up. It has nothing to do with the subject matter, this was not an issue for those scholars quoted in the article – so it must NOT be issue for us.
About Ali Juma disagreeing with him, so what? people disagree with each other all the time. Ali juma disagreed with TR conclusion – so did most of the other scholars in that article! But did Ali Juma say “TR is not a scholar, so he has no right to say it” NO NO NO.
So lets stick to SUBSTANCE ONLY and not try to discredit people by questioning whether they are scholar or not! That is a cheap tactic of people who don’t or can’t argue and debate.
We should debate the issue and not the person!
Actually we have Ulul Ilm/Ahlul Ilm in Islam, the people of knowledge. We have the term ulamaa who are the inheritors of the prophet (peace be upon him). They are not bound by any innovated systems as in the Catholic church for example, but as long as one carries knowledge and is accredited by others as being so, then he will inshallah fall under the term of Ahlul Ilm.
Now in this case, when someone has made a claim and his claim has been refuted, it actually indicates that his argument was not based upon knowledge and he spoke on a matter without sound knowledge, which supports the view that he is not from ahlul ilm.
The fact that his critics argued against his points does not in any way show they agreed he was fit to make such points.
We are told to speak of those things which we have knowledge of. The matter is of importance (albeit secondary in the case of this discussion) as the claim that ‘there is no clergy’ in Islam and that ‘anyone can make points’ about Allah’s revealed religion opens a nasty and dangerous door, one that the Prophet (saw) prophecized. It opens the door to the foolish and ignorant speaking and making declarations on behalf of Allah’s religion, and opens the door to speaking without knowledge. It is the job of those who don’t have knowledge on a matter to refer it to the ‘ahlul ilm’ as the verse says, not shout out what they think and expect everyone to correct them if they are wrong.
But yes, the primary point of importance should be the arguments being made, without discrediting the importance of who is making it. In this sense, I think there is some sort of agreement regarding the first, and lingering disagreement on the second.
“When there comes to them some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they make it known (among the people), if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have understood it from them (directly). Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allâh upon you, you would have followed Shaitân (Satan), save a few of you.” (Al-Nisa: 83)
@OK You said: “Now in this case, when someone has made a claim and his claim has been refuted, it actually indicates that his argument was not based upon knowledge and he spoke on a matter without sound knowledge, which supports the view that he is not from ahlul ilm.”
That is incorrect and flase argument – if a scholar makes a wrong judgement. We say he gets 1 reward – we DONT say that is proof he isn’t a scholar and doesn’t have ilm! Please…
Otherwise when Abu Yusuf rejected many of the opinions of his teacher Abu Hanifa, that would’ve been evidence that Abu Hanifa didn’t have ilm!
Scholars do occsaionally make wrong conclusions (for whatever reasons), when other scholars refute them – they show how and why the other ’scholar’ (yes scholar) is wrong. They don’t then add – btw that is evidence that guy is not a scholar!
That is exactly why we have the principle of 1 reward for incorrect conclusion, and 2 for correct.
About the no clergy issue. There is no such danger at all. We have had many sects emerge with many deviant views, but ahl as sunnah is still going strong theologically. there isn’t chaos. what i meant was that people without knowledge and ignorants are quickly exposed by their own stupidity. (example ziauddin sardar – was ‘discovered’ when he said his friend amina wudud could lead jumuah prayer for men! he also wanted to do tafseer of quran – despite not knowing arabic language and and the other basic requirements of tafseer. if he applied for a job as imam – you think people would give him a job? you think people would go to him asking for a fatwa? Naaa.)
So why don’t we just agree that whether one is a official scholar or not – isn’t a requirement to start these dicussions or provide these analyses. he is more than qualified. whether he call him a mujtahid or not, a scholar or not is neither here nor there! he himself doesnt claim to be a scholar.
if maududi and albanna could start these debates, provide such analysis, and make such calls for reform or whatever – he also has the right. maududi and albanna were not certified scholars or mujtahids.
Mawdudi and banna were not giving fatawaa (and Mawdudi at least as far as I know was considered an alim by his generation), but were merely directing the masses back to the concepts of ‘raising Allah’s kalimah’ which the Prophet (saw) came with. TR is not repeating an already established concept but creating a new rule based on his understanding of the circumstances (which he has also failed to provide sufficient evidence for; juristic or statistical) by declaring that hudood should be put on hold.
And the issue here is WHO is qualified to enjoy the concession of ‘reward for 1 incorrect conclusion and 2 for correct conclusion’? Not every claimant is entitled to this. Do Ziuddin Sardar or Amina Wadood who you have named also share this same rule? Did they receive one reward for their incorrect conclusions? If not, why not?
Anyway, I repeat that the matter is secondary without discrediting its importance. As the saying of one of the pious predecessors goes (Ali (r) I think) who said: “know the truth and you will know its people”.
you still fail to produce any evidence that TR is a mujtahid. Reference please buddy, lest you may cast your own self as a google/fraudster.
“We should debate the issue and not the person!”!!!
a bit rich coming from you, abdalla after it is established that you call people liars, morons, slanderers or idiots the moment you cannot argue on the points.
Notice how if ISNA scholars or other movement individuals such as those affiliated with ‘islamonline’ make the exact same argument as many people on this blog (e.g. muslim, izzuddeen, rational, submission, wiki, e.mam, captain), those who disagreed suddenly AGREE!
this is because, these guys were so narrow minded that when ordinary brothers (that they percieve to be ‘morons, backward, bedouinesque’) present very strong evidence based arguments grounded in the texts and in the speech of the scholars, they dismiss the argument out of hand simply based on their negative stereotype of these individuals.
Now, when one of their own utters even half the argument, they agree to close the book and discreetly bring up other issues such as the concept of ‘clergy’ in islam. Cheek!
finally, according to YOUR misinformed view, zia ullaah sardar should have every right to make claims the way TR does. I obviously disapprove of that and do not equate zia sardar to even TR! You, abdullaah, on the otherhand DO equate him…
sadly, even though there was concensus amongst all ulamaa on the issue of amina wadood, frankly, she presented a better grounded argument on why she felt that she should be imam.
did i forget to mention that abdullaah, you are also yet to sunstantiate how saying niqab isn’t fard is the same as saying niqab is ‘not islamic’?
please don’t dodge or make false/irrelevant allegations that people are using more than one username. pathetic.
@ Abdalla- Sheikh Qaradawi never said that it (Niqab) was UNISLAMIC. Where did you read that?
Amazing how i have been saying the following all along,
And every time i mentioned it no one was willing to accept it, but after reading an article by someone else now they accept my point,
All i can say is AMAZING!
Moving to the point about wether TR is a Scholar you need to provide more than one scholars name. Also the person in the article who called TR a scholar is he referred as a scholar by the other scholars? (genuine question i really dont know)
Just because scholars did not say he was not a scholar does not prove TR is a scholar. E.G Does Qardawi call TR a Scholar, even on a logical point of view how can you say TR is the same as Qardawi?
Here we go again. This Alpha comes on to derail the discussion….
We should follow the example of those scholars and thinkers and learned individuals quoted in that article. They disagreed with the view and arguments of TR on the issue of Hudood. NONE of them made an issue about whether he is a mujtahid or scholar – none of them were that spiteful to bring this issue up again and again. ALL they did was discuss the issue – and one of them even referred to him as a ’scholar’.
TR himself does not claim to be a mujtahid or scholar. Whether he is or not has NOTHING to do with what he said on hudood or niqab or anything else. If the scholars quoted in the article had the same spiteful attitude as some here – they would’ve just said ‘who is this TR, he’s not a scholar – therefore his argument is baseless’. They do not have those manners – they don’t care for this futile tactic of those who cant or dont want to debate him.
I prefer their attitude than the google scholars here. To me it doesn’t matter whether he is or isn’t. He has the right to discuss that issue – and the other scholars accepted his right to debate it (though they disagreed with his conclusion). That is the proper ettiquette.
TR as far as we know never claimed that Niqab is bida’ (unislamic) the only vague quote provided was in reference to whether is is an islamic prescription – ie fard. Whether he claims it is sunnah or less than that – we SHOULD READ HIS BOOK TO FIND OUT, rather than this stupid hypotheical arguments.
As for Qardawi on Niqab – as far as I know he does not think it is fard. whether he considers it mustahab (better to) or just ’sunnah’ I don’t know.
These are futile arguments. If we want to know qardawis opinion – we should just write to him via islamonline or ikhwan web, the dude is alive! even if he said it is bida’ – that is his opinion, he could be wrong and we could disagree with him.
We must all learn the concept of iktilaaf. and not seek to condemn people purely for their different opinion or discredit them (by saying he’s not a scholar), if they hold a different opinion to us.
Imam al-Banna said he believes in multiple correct answers.
@Abdalla
Do not get me wrong but i am not deraling the discussion. I am just discussing wether or not TR is a scholar and wether or not he is a mujtahid? This is a genuine discussion which is what i am trying to have. This is a blog which we discuss and one of the points is about TR. My point here at this moment is not linked to his opinions, all i want is to discuss his status at this moment in time. So please provide evidence!
@Hanif
You seem to have missed the point. I made a point but instead to trying to discuss it i was attacked and character assinated. This is because certain individuals have a personal vendetta against me because i question their views and this was the problem.
@Shaykh Wiki No I didn’t do that. I said if you believe that people should listen to the actual content, rather than on whether someone is or isn’t a scholar – then you should give the same respect to Tariq Ramadan.
What purpose does it serve to discuss whether Tariq Ramadan is or isn’t a scholar? That has nothing to do with the dicussion. If the notable people quoted in that article did not debate that why should we? We should learn from that rather than this futile discussion.
To debate whether he is or not a scholar is to try to discredit the man – not for the content of his thoughts, but for being who he is. If you don’t like it, why should you do that to him?
So please leave the question and just discuss his views! If unsure read his book to find out exactly what he believes and not just speculate on vague quotes.
@Hanif
The reason for this discussion is because before in an earlier blog and even here it has been mentioned TR is a scholar. You should not raise a person to a high level which he is not actually at. The reason for this is to avoide people who will only read the blog to become confused and believe TR is a scholar. Then they will believe you can take a fatwa from him etc. The point of this discussion is to prevent confusion.
@Shaykh Wiki So what if it was mentioned here and earlier that TR is a scholar? If you don’t think he is, you have that right. If others want to believe he is that’s their right.
We only have a duty to say what we think and give our reasons for that. We are not guardians of the public thought. We are not their big brother telling them who to listen to! We must trust Muslims.
To try and protect people is what all dictatorships have done and what all authoritarian regimes do. They censor what can be said to ‘protect the public’. That is not the Islamic way – open discussion, and the ability of all to have their say is the Islamic way.
Here are the ‘vague’ quotes and references. Clearly not vague at all. They are very clear actually.
“In ‘The Messenger’, he (TR) writes that he does not believe it’s Islamic for women to mask their faces by wearing the niqab… ”
“I want the discussion to be opened: ‘Is this really Islamic?’ I would say no.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/tariq-ramadan–do-you-trust-this-man-439564.html
or here
You said in #71 “…he (Ramadan) believes niqab is ‘NOT ISLAMIC’…so what is your point? He clearly says hijab (hair covering) is fard… Even if he thinks niqab is not even sunnah OR IS A BIDA’ …”
At least the mothers of the believers ra donned the niqaab. How can one say it is not islamic? Thereby opening the door to infer that it is a bid’ah!
Abdullaah, please stop saying that TRs views are the same as Dr Qaradawi’s as Dr Q never said niqaab is ‘un-islamic’.
TR’s level of qualification is crucial to this discussion. Brothers, please don’t be naive to assume that it isn’t. If you weren’t qualified to give medical advice, you cannot be a doctor. If you weren’t qualified to design buildings, it would be illegal for you to design/build one.
It’s ok to ‘talk’ about medicine, to talk about design and it’s ok to talk about hudood. It ISN’T okay to publicly campaign for an indefinate international suspension on the entire hudood system after just talking about hudood. It certainly isn’t a good idea when the very concept of hudood is being demonised/criminalised by the kuffaar.
So as you can see, and was repeated many times before by many brothers, TR’s level of qualification is crucial to this discussion.
Then for the sake of authenticity and consistency (a thing that you religiously believe in), Abdullaah, (and i am not saying that he isn’t) if you claim he is a mujtahid (more qualified than a scholar) then please provide the facts/evidence for this. It may be attacked as ‘fraud’ by some on this blog if you don’t do so.
Also, if the question of qualification/scholarship was irrelevant, why then would you deny a poor brother like Ziauddin Sardar the islamic legal right to conclude that women can lead men in prayer? Or why would you deny Aminah Wadood the same right, if TR is allowed to have that right?
Lastly akhi, and as has been mentioned so many times before, not all ikhtilaaf is authentic or acceptable in sharee’ah. For e.g. Sardar cannot argue that it is valid ikhtilaaf that women can lead men in prayer. Nor can one suggest that due to ikhtilaaf, I am free to be shee’ah or sunni, that there is ikhtilaaf about the appointing of Abu Bakr ra as khaleefatul mu’mineen. That there is ikhtilaaf on whether we should pay zakah or not. That there is ikhtilaaf about drinking alcohol. You see where i’m going.
Invalid ikhtilaaf cannot justify TRs position on the hudood the way he has currently worded it. Had he said what we all were saying, that he criticize the Saudi regime for implementing unjust Saudi law, then there’s no ikhtilaaf there at all.
These views of his force me to deeply doubt his political astuteness as he has raised questions about the issue of niqaab and hudood at a time when islam is being assaulted on those very same fronts.
astawdi’ukallaah
Another interesting article against Dr.Tariq Ramadan’s Call:
‘No Thanks Tariq Ramadan’:
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:ZOcSaLrG35kJ:www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php%3FarticleID%3D1222+Abu+Zubair%27s+article+%27No+Thanks+to+Tariq+Ramadan%27&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk&client=opera
That’s correct.
We cannot force people to believe or think something. But that’s not the same as saying that it is OK for anyone to think and believe what they like.
The two are different.
@Abdalla
If TR is not a Scholar we should nt call him a scholar. An example is if Joe Blogs in an teacher then why should we call him a doctor. This will create confusion and people will go to him for medical advice. Do you see my point?
@alpha, not all said we agree. Those particular scholars (if you would read carefully) did not tackle his fiqh arguments, they all probably, as he pointed out, did nit read his arguments and that he was not calling for a indefinite suspension on hudud. You can argue that politicaly it was unwise but from a legal basis he does have some foundation.
Here are the ‘vague’ quotes and references. Clearly not vague at all. They are very clear actually.
“In ‘The Messenger’, he (TR) writes that he does not believe it’s Islamic for women to mask their faces by wearing the niqab… ”
“I want the discussion to be opened: ‘Is this really Islamic?’ I would say no.”
i provided a link here but it kept getting moderated so if you want it, see one of my first posts on this article for the actual url.
Abdullaah, you said in #71 “…he (Ramadan) believes niqab is ‘NOT ISLAMIC’…so what is your point? He clearly says hijab (hair covering) is fard… Even if he thinks niqab is not even sunnah OR IS A BIDA’ …”
At least the mothers of the believers ra donned the niqaab. How can one say it is not islamic? Thereby opening the door to infer that it is a bid’ah!
Abdullaah, please stop saying that TRs views are the same as Dr Qaradawi’s as Dr Q never said niqaab is ‘un-islamic’.
TR’s level of qualification is absolutely crucial to this discussion. Brothers, please don’t be naive to assume that it isn’t. If you weren’t qualified to give medical advice, you cannot be a doctor. If you weren’t qualified to design buildings, it would be illegal for you to design/build one.
It’s ok to ‘talk’ about medicine, to talk about design and it’s ok to talk about hudood. It ISN’T okay to publicly campaign for an indefinate international suspension on the entire hudood system after just talking about hudood. It certainly isn’t a good idea when the very concept of hudood is being demonised/criminalised by the kuffaar.
So as you can see, and was repeated many times before by many brothers, TR’s level of qualification is crucial to this discussion.
Then for the sake of authenticity and consistency (a thing that you religiously believe in), Abdullaah, (and i am not saying that he isn’t) if you claim he is a mujtahid (more qualified than a scholar) then please provide the facts/evidence for this. It may be attacked as ‘fraud’ by some on this blog if you don’t do so.
Also, if the question of qualification/scholarship was irrelevant, why then would you deny a poor brother like Ziauddin Sardar the islamic legal right to conclude that women can lead men in prayer? Or why would you deny Aminah Wadood the same right, if TR is allowed to have that right?
Lastly akhi, and as has been mentioned so many times before, not all ikhtilaaf is authentic or acceptable in sharee’ah. For e.g. Sardar cannot argue that it is valid ikhtilaaf that women can lead men in prayer. Nor can one suggest that due to ikhtilaaf, I am free to be shee’ah or sunni, that there is ikhtilaaf about the appointing of Abu Bakr ra as khaleefatul mu’mineen. That there is ikhtilaaf on whether we should pay zakah or not. That there is ikhtilaaf about drinking alcohol. You see where i’m going.
Invalid ikhtilaaf cannot justify TRs position on the hudood the way he has currently worded it. Had he said what we all were saying, that he criticize the Saudi regime for implementing unjust Saudi law, then there’s no ikhtilaaf there at all.
These views of his force me to deeply doubt his political astuteness as he has raised questions about the issue of niqaab and hudood at a time when islam is being assaulted on those very same fronts.
astawdi’ukallaah
That is not a good example, because it isn’t as if TR is a total ignorant. He did study the deen, the 6year azhar course, plus phd in Islamic, plus under his own father etc etc. So what if it don’t make him a scholar or mujtahid.
By that definition majority of mosque imams in this country are not scholars or mujtahids. many of them have basic maulana titles. yet they give out fiqh advice to public…
And i don’t think TR sits around inviting people to go to him for fiqh. and if even want to go to him, let them! they’ll soon realise if he’s bogus and confusing them or advising them on correct things.
Key thing is we must let the people decide. we shouldn’t be big brother and decide who is bogus and who isn’t. that is not our job. some people think he’s a scholar others don’t – so what. that’s another difference of opinion.
@Abdalla
Excellent. Just because we may not agree with a person it does not make him ignorant or does not deserve the title of being a scholar. He has studied Islamic law and Arabic at postgraduate level as well as private with Shuyukh of al-azhar for a number of years notwithstanding with his father who was a schlar. Compare him with some local ‘scholars’ and you will find that he is more aware of Islam or at par with them.
Actually, he didn;t produce any real ‘fiqhi’ evidence for it to be refuted. The one that was (i.e. the analogy Umar (r) and the famine) was refuted.
The articles in Islamonline clearl say the following:
“A notable feature of Ramadan’s call is the absence of any juristic opinions to support his views. Ramadan refers to “the majority of the `ulamaa’s [religious scholars]” without specifying names or citing juristic proofs. ”
“It is important here to demonstrate a very grave mistake that appeared in Ramadan’s paper. This mistake is related to the analogy he drew between his call for a moratorium on hudud and Caliph `Umar ibn Al-Khattab’s stopping the execution of the penalty for theft in the Year of Ar-Ramadah (a year of famine in the Muslim state). Ramadan succeeds in presenting the situation in which the legal penalty for theft was halted; however, his analogy between that situation and the moratorium he calls for is defective. Since he has presented the social context of the moratorium on the penalty for theft expressly and concisely in his paper, why then did he not also present considerations for the moratorium on other penalties in the same way? Instead, he relied on mere moral expressions unsubstantiated by statistics.” – W Fuad
“The Arabic version of the paper—published on Ramadan’s Web site—has no single statistic as evidence to support his basic objection to the execution of hudud.” – W Fuad
“I totally agree with Ramadan concerning the necessity to stop regarding hudud as the core of Shari`ah. (I will expound on that in a separate paragraph.) However, I absolutely refuse to deal with Shari`ah and its implementation in such an inconsiderate way as Ramadan did. Discussion of such matters should take place in a disciplined, academic way, which is missing in Ramadan’s call.” – W Fuad
His ‘arguments’ have been likened to Amina Wadood’s (do you consider her a mujtahid who made a mistake for which sh’es rewarded, and if not why not?):
“we have heard many intellectuals set out to prove that Islam is “democratic,” in the sense that it is compatible with Western democratic values, and have also recently seen a Friday prayer lead by a woman in the United States.” – Dr Emad Shahin
” By being selective while dealing with Shari`ah, “we are tearing Islam apart from within,” – Dr Shahin (if this is not tackling and condemning his ‘arguments’, what is?)
So according to the sources above, his arguments for calling for a moratorium on hudood were unsupported and mistaken. He has been condemned for his ‘call’ and his lack of evidence behind it. At the same time, the secondary points he makes such as the hudood taking a disproportionate ranking in the minds of some Muslims as ‘the shariah’ is a point everyone agrees with. While other secondary points he alludes to such as his unsupported analysis that Islamic revivalists cling purely to hudood are rejected. But these are not the point of discussion, rather the unfounded call for a suspension of Islamic hudood. It is dangerous as it is essentially a fatwa without sound knowledge (according to the quotes above) and gives something for more ziaddun sardars and amina wadoods and ed hussains to take inspiration from.
What do you think of the article on post # 42 (on this page 4)?
‘No Thanks Tariq Ramadan’
This one
so his arguments about inhustice and oppression are not fiqhi right? The author you quote is also basing his main refutaion on TR not presenting statistics! Its obvious dudes the oppression that is taking place in saudi arabia, many international organisations have attested to that fact even the ones inside saudi (and they are not against Islam). Just do a google search! You may disgaree but as TR said many of those scholars who ‘refuted’ him may not have read his report or call properly. TR is using the same usool and foundation those scholars who wrote against him. He just has the courage to go one step further and implement that usool.
Not sure how I missed this post, must’ve been the links which went theough moderation. Well said though.
And Captain, thanks for the link.