An International call for Moratorium on corporal
punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World
Première publication : 30 March 2005, mise en ligne: Tuesday 5 April 2005, by
Tariq RAMADAN Printable version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 sharî’a, or more precisely hudûd[1], the terms of the
debate are defined by central questions emerging from thought provoking
discussions taking place between ulamâ’ (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 hudûd, assessing this as an essential
prerequisite to truly defining a “Muslim majority society” as “Islamic”. Others,
while accepting the fact that the hudûd are indeed found in the textual
references (the Qur’an and the Sunna[2]), consider the application of hudûd 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
hudûd 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 ulamâ’ say?
All the ulamâ’ (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
ulamâ’ 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 ulamâ’, 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 hudûd 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 ulamâ’, 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 ulamâ 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 hudûd
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
hudûd 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 hudûd 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 hudûd or the sharî’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 ulamâ’
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 hudûd, 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
sharî’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 hudûd 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 hudûd. 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 sharî’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
maqâsid) or the different interpretations and conditions relating to the
application of the hudûd.
Faced with this passion, many ulamâ’ 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 ulamâ’, 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 ulamâ’ 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 ulamâ’, 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 sharî’a” and hudûd).
In terms of the more circumscribed religious question, we can observe a crisis
of authority accompanied by an absence of internal debate among the ulamâ’ 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
(ahkâm).
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 ‘âlim (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
sharî’a or hudûd 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 hudûd,
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 hudûd which is inaccurately
accepted as an application of “Islamic sharî’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 (sunnî
or shî’î), their school of thought (hanâfî, mâlikî, ja’farî, etc.) or their
tendencies (literalist, salafî, 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 hudûd? Where are the margins of possible
interpretations and on which points are there clear divergences (al ikhtilâf) in
the history of the Islamic law and in the contemporary era?
What are the conditions (shurût) stipulated for each of the penalties by the
sources themselves, the consensus of the scholars (al ijmâ’) 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 wâqi’) was always considered by the ulamâ’ as
one of the conditions needed for the application of hudûd. 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 hudûd? 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
ulamâ’ 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 ulamâ’, 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-maqâsid). 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 hudûd, 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 hudûd and for
the opening of a vast intra-community debate (critical, reasonable and reasoned)
between the ulamâ, the intellectuals, the leaders and the general population.
- Taking the ulamâ to account so that they at last dare to report the injustices
and instrumentalization of Islam in the field of hudûd 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 hudûd 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, (fuqahâ’), this term is inclusive of the punishment which is
revealed in the application of the Islamic Penal code. Sharî’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. Sharî’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] Hadîth reported by al-Bukhârî and Muslim.
[5] The argument is weak and dangerous as it tacitly accepts the application of
hudûd 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)