Moratorium on Death Penalty

Category: Faith & Spirituality, Life & Society Topics: Death Penalty Views: 9242

An International call for Moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World

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-a-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 being very 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 opens an intra-community dialogue, while refusing the continued legalized injustices in 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. 


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)

  Category: Faith & Spirituality, Life & Society
  Topics: Death Penalty
Views: 9242

Related Suggestions

The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Older Comments:
All the fine rhetoric in the world, though it be rational does not solve the problems which have raged for many years. Is it any wonder that other peoples and religions fear and distrust Islam, when you can rationally tell us that it shouldn't be the way we see it going but, it still is. Arise good ones and retore Mohammad's rules of equality for women and tollerance for the poor and neady. It's one thing to talk a good game it's another to play it.

Agree. Well written. Though death penalty may still be needed in a less barbaric way for people found guilty of barbaric acts. You would forgive a hitler or someone who has committed a genocide. Now what? I would love to see a set of well researched steps that readers could take.How do we make the call effective? What the different people in their different sphere of influence can do? And how? How do we give this message some teeth?

The second Caliph, Umar ibn Al-Khattab, stopped the implementation of the hadd for theft in a year of drought.

There are pre-requisites which should be met, which are absent today.

Dr. Ramadan is right.

I fully agree with the author. We seem to be as Muslims quick to stone a woman for zina (leaving the man alone). Too many of our Muslim nations suffer from corruption and do not truly follow the ideals of our deen and because of this I agree with a moratorium. The act of stoning is barbaric and merciless and is not found in the Holy Quran. More scholarly debate is needed on this issue.

Islam is one of the most misunderstood religion of the world. Not only by non-Muslims but the Muslims as well, that means me, you and lot of others. Unfortunately, a self analysis of a Muslim reveals how deviated we are. Tariq Ramadan has done nothing but handed us mirrors and asked us to be the judge. To me his understanding of this subject accurate.

Tariq Ramadan has shown himself to be a clear and objective voice in Islam, I am in total agreement with him and am thrilled to see such an article and proposal that is so urgently needed in today's world for Islam itself and the world at large.

I agree with most of the points made here. A constructive dialog is necessary to improve society and make sure the poor and the weak are not oppressed

Mr. Tariq Ramadan,

Just because some judges were wrong in their judgments doesn't mean the law need a change. And its not just women, as far I know personally more men (criminals) been killed or punished by Hudud. Its because media wanted to create scene they take the women issue and go around drum beat. Because it attracts the so called "civilized" people attention in the west, mean SALE.

Give me a break, thousand of innocent men, women (old or young) and children's are killed every day in Afghanistan and Iraq by the so called "civilized" and "western" people whom you are call for help in changing shariah, because for you shariah is too harsh that you need the blood thirst monsters to help it change, Nauzbillah.

You know what, you cannot impress even an ignorant of Muslim.

As the West tries to marginalize Islam and to restrict it to merely acts of worship, we should not bow to their pressure but strive towards a more perfect application of Islam to all aspects of our lives and our societies. Islam is a complete way of life and in an Islamic State there is no "separation of church and state". It is the collective responsibility of the Muslim community to forbid the bad and to promote the good. We must not "reform" Islam into something that is more palatable to the West while not considering that we must all face Allah on the Judgement Day. We fear Allah to the extent that we avoid what is forbidden and we love Allah and His Messenger (saaws) to the extent that we follow the Quran and the Sunnah.

the hudud on this issue is clear, same with all other qati (definate texts) e.g the apostate, womens covering, and the other issues so called modernists want to 'REFORM'. the fact is we dont have a state that can enforce these rulesjustly as we did under the khilafah. so now you a find pick and mix formula of what to implement, upon whom at the discreation of man. more damaging are those scholars and reformers who are bending over in order to please western societies by reinterpreting rules from the shariah and making halal- haram and the haram halal. arent they just following others into the lizards pit? do we want islam secularized, no thank you! do we want it repacked to suit western tastes, no. do you doubt we have the haq (truth)? we should put forward islam as an ideology, as an alternative way OF LIFE to the colonialist nature of capitalism. what are you so called leader afraid of. those who have hatred for islam cant bring death any closer to you, but far more dangerous is the type of islam they want you and your children to adopt. soon you will have- british gay and muslim children! and children muslim by name only! when will you relise integration is not the solution but interaction not deviation from shariah. i pray Allah has mercy on us all. wasalam

I fully agree with the author. Many of these laws were formulated by Ulmas two to three centuries after the prophet's (PBUH)death, utilizing Hadith and its inerpretation in the context of prevaling envitonment. An obvios example is death penalty for apostacy. Now how one can justify this in the light of the fact that Quran repeatedly reminds us that there is no compulsion in religion, ( LA ikra fiddin). We often quote this Aya and if some one decides to renounce islam our Ulma Want his head. What a hypocricy.

What we need for Muslims is Ijtehad by Knowledgable Muslim scholars who use Quran as their source , and donot treat the iterpretations by earlier Ulmas as immutable fact By this I do not mean any disrespect towards them. They were sincere paople but only human and subject to huma fallibility and bias.

What is needed is a moratorium to the daily calls for "reform" through rhetoric. What is needed is a total 'restoration' of Islamic value system for peace and justice for all people and everywhere. "Reform" is needed in our societies and its man made systems and not the Divine. We the people must fit to the Divine wisdom & not otherwise.

A very well-argued opinion. Congratulations to the author. Two passages just leaped out at me:

"...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".

It seems like too many in the world seem to confuse authentic Islam with a thoughtless and reckless opposition to what they believe is the 'west'.

"...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)."

This, more than anything else (including imperialism, poverty and a general state of war throughout), defines the genuine crisis of the Islamic world.

That crisis enables a few exceptionally cruel and vicious people to parade their lust for blood and suffering before the world and apply the label of 'Islam' to it; and to apply their version of sharia entirely outside the framework of actual sharia. And this creates no end of chaos in whatever community where they operate. And this chaos perpetuates the cycle of poverty, ignorance and hopelessness that so many Muslims have been victims of.

I dearly hope that the genuine ulama are able to find their voice.

H FROM PK said:
The eye for an eye rule in the Quran sets the most basic rule of reciprocity which was established in the Torah. However like all previous religions, Islam also directs people to respond evil with good. It is nudging people to move on from this very basic justice system to even better system on he basis of the religious principles themselves. No Muslim is asking to stop criminalising theft, adultery etc. The question is that can we achieve our aims of minimising these crimes without having to invoke hadd punishments. If Ijma is taking of the whole umma, most Muslims are very afraid of the 'Islamic parties' who just want to practice the hadd punishments to show they are in power and Islam has been established. In the presence of these people, most Muslims would rather not give the power to the state to amputate or stone. This is visible in the choice Muslims make in elections. Moreover what are the Ulema doing to counter the pornography and 'sexual liberation' on the internet and on the tv of so many Muslim homes. We need a way to stand true to our principles. It is a big challenge for us.

Moreover, the historical criticism of hadith is urgently needed. Most of the reports might be true but they are not exact words of th Prophet. These hadith show the general views of the people in the first 2 centuries after the death of the Prophet. Many sayings have been attributed to him just like that. Moreover a lot of Israeli and Christian folklore and prophecies have entered the Muslim belief system through this. If we really value the Quran we must be wary of any hadith which is against the vision of Quran For example apostasy is a capital crime according to hadith. But there are so many verses in the Quran which tell us that no wordly punishment is due. Any comments on that?

I am very much disappointed with this article. Author is taking the responsibility of Orientalist from his Pen. Better he should remember the day of judgement where the most severe punishment will be given to hypocrites rather to disbelievers. He is demanding the same thing what open enemies of Islam are demanding. He will never achieve success in his mission as long as one single soul of true believer is present on the face of earth.

Only Kuffars and munafiqeen will come to an agreement with his idea of suspension of Hudud Ullah. There are many false muslim scholors in western worlds and so called muslim organizations and centres trying to fulfill their loyal duties to Kuffars by justifying the demands of Kufr.

I would invite them to the remembrance of day of judgement and fear of Allah alone.

May Allah unite the true believers of Islam in order to crush Kufr and Kufr's Assosciates within muslim ranks. ameen


Stoning, adultery laws (which are often applied unfairly towards women), dismemberment of body parts, these are not contemporary and have no place in this day and age. This interpretation of Sharia has to go. Women, especially women, have to speak up and make sure so-called "Islamic" laws that oppress them, are modernized. We Muslim women have been silent for way too long. We need to stop doing men's bidding out of a false sense of muslim solidarity. We help islam best when we as women demand that it make an equal place for us.

God bless you, tariq!!!

jazakum Allah khair!!!!

wa assalam.