Tariq Ramadan on the 'Controversial' Issues of the Day

[ElPunto]

Muslims Speak Out

 

Tariq Ramadan

 

1. WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

 

The concept of “jihad” has different meanings and a scholar such as Jalal ad-Dîn as-Suyutî (15th century), while studying its scope, highlighted 80 different dimensions, uses and objectives related to its place in Islamic teachings. Its root “ja-ha-da” means “making an effort”, “exerting oneself” in order to promote good or to resist wrongdoing, evil or oppression. Every individual trying to resist her/his own negative temptations is engaged in “jihad” and the first time the word is used in the Qur’an (25:52), it refers to an intellectual and spiritual resistance by the means of the Qur’an itself.

 

In all its dimensions, the essence of “jihad” is “to resist” in the name of justice and dignity. When there is an armed aggression, Muslims have the right to protect themselves and to defend their rights. Here “jihâd” means “qitâl” (armed struggle). The use of violence and weapons must be adjusted to the nature of the aggression itself: an armed aggression may justify an armed resistance if there is no other way to come to a peaceful agreement. But the use of violence and weapons must be proportionate and never target innocent people, women, children, the elderly, and even fruit trees as Abû Bakr, the first successor of the Prophet, stated following Muhammad’s teachings. Jihad never means “holy war” in order “to impose” or “to propagate” Islam everywhere. In fact jihâd and qitâl mean exactly the opposite of what we commonly think: rather than being the justifying instruments of war, they are the imposed measures to achieve peace by resisting an unjust aggression.

 

In specific situations – when one faces an army and has no weapons or other means to resist – it may be understandable and justifiable to consider sacrificing one’s life in attempts to reach the armed soldiers. Here we are not far from a kind of suicide but it is related to three specific conditions: 1. It must be in a time of declared war; 2. when no other means of resisting are available; 3. the targets must be exclusively the army of the enemies and its armed soldiers. Today’s suicide bombers who are killing innocent people are not only not respecting the Islamic teachings as to the ethics of war but are in fact indulging in anti-Islamic actions.

 

2. HOW DOES ISLAM DEFINE APOSTASY? IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MUSLIM TO

CONVERT TO ANOTHER FAITH? HOW CAN LAWS AGAINST APOSTASY AND BLASPHEMY BE RECONCILED WITH THE KORANIC INJUNCTION OF "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION"?

 

In the Islamic legal tradition, “apostasy” known as “ridda” is related to changing one’s religion and its injunction is mainly based on two prophetic sayings (ahadith) both quoted in sahih Bukhari (9,83 and 84): “The one who changes his religion, kill him” and another tradition noting that among the three categories of people who can be killed is “the one who leaves the community”. The great majority of the Muslim scholars, from all the different traditions and throughout history, have been of the opinion that changing one’s religion is prohibited in Islam and should be sanctioned by the death penalty.

 

Nevertheless we find, in very early studies and writings, several Muslim scholars having a different approach. The jurist Ibrahîm al-Nakha’î (8th), Sufyân ath-Thawrî (8th) in his renowned work on the prophetic tradition (Al-Jâmi’ al Kabîr, Al-Jâmi’ al-Saghîr) as well as the hanafi jurist Shams ad-Dîn as-Sarakhsî (11th) – among others- hold other views. They question the absolute authenticity of the two prophetic traditions quoted above. They also argue that nothing is mentioned in the Qur’an pertaining to this very sensitive issue and add that there is no evidence of the Prophet killing someone only because he/she changed his/her religion.

 

The Prophet took firm measures, only in time of war, against people who had falsely converted to Islam for the sole purpose of infiltrating the Islamic community to obtain information they then passed on to the enemy. They were in fact betrayers engaging in high treason who incurred the penalty of death because their actions were liable to bring about the destruction of the Muslim community and the two prophetic traditions quoted above should be read in this very specific context.

 

In light of the texts (Qur’an and prophetic traditions) and the way the Prophet behaved with the people who left Islam (like Hishâm and ‘Ayyash) or who converted to Christianity (such as Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh), it should be stated that one who changes her/his religion should not be killed. In Islam, there can be no compulsion or coercion in matters of faith not only because it is explicitly forbidden in the Qur’an but also because free conscious and choice and willing submission are foundational to the first pillar (declaration of faith) and essential to the very definition of “Islam”. Therefore, someone leaving Islam or converting to another religion must be free to do so and her/his choice must be respected.

 

One might hope that anyone, be she/he a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim or anything else, would show as much respect towards the religious or spiritual community she/he is leaving as the latter must express towards her/him.

 

3. WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN ISLAM? HOW DOES ISLAM'S VIEW OF

MALE-FEMALE EQUALITY DIFFER FROM THE WESTERN VIEW?

 

The issue of “women is Islam” is a charged topic with preconceived notions, stereotypes and prototypes, claims and counter-claims on all sides. It is always about a woman’s role, what rights she does or does not have in Muslim societies in opposition to the West. In these dueling lists of rights, only the fighting words are sharpened but no insight is gained. For a fruitful discussion, it is imperative to change the terms of discourse. And as a first step, it is necessary to recall that the Qur’an was revealed over a 23 year period and in a specific historical context: it is important to take these two factors into account. The first helps us to avoid a literalist reading of some verses by being cognizant that they have to be understood through a sequence of different verses leading us to the global message. The second forces us to consider the cultural environment within which the Qur’an was revealed and alerts us not to confuse some cultural contextual features (whether historical or contemporary) with the universal Islamic teachings. These are indeed the two main problems we find when it comes to the women issue: literalist reading and cultural understanding.

 

It is difficult, in this limited space, to list all the rights of women in Islam and in fact it may be the wrong way to start the discussion. For centuries, Muslim scholars have talked about women in terms of their roles (daughter, wife, mother, sister) and the respective rights and responsibilities related to their family or social functions. It is high time to change our perspective and start talking about “women” as “women”, their being, not their roles or functions. This should be considered their first right: the right to be and to be autonomous ontologically, religiously, socially and economically. Approached from that angle, the perspectives of the whole debate change and it becomes necessary to be quite critical as to the long Islamic legal tradition dealing with the woman issue. We are in dire need of a constructive critical reassessment of the Islamic discourse and understanding on women.

 

Not only is it necessary to say that female circumcision, domestic violence, forced marriages are not Islamic but we need a comprehensive approach as to the Muslim woman identity within the Islamic communities and societies. It is imperative for Muslim women to be more autonomous, to have equal access to knowledge as men (especially in religious matters), to receive equal pay for the same work and competence, to share social status and political power in their societies and to set the scene for the much needed debate around the role of men in the Islamic societies and communities. A new perspective that focuses on the woman as a psychological and spiritual being will read the sacred texts with fresh eyes (including those of female scholars) and liberates the Muslim women from within by challenging narrow religious interpretations and oppressive cultural practices and is propelled by faithfulness to Islam’s global message.

 

To speak about Islam promoting “complementarity” between men and women as opposed to the West’s call for total “equality” is not only misleading but it is wrong. There is room for a deep reassessment of this issue from within the Islamic scriptural texts themselves and this is what, Muslim men and women, together should work on/for in the name of their religion to resist all discriminatory practices and views promoted by narrow literalist or cultural understanding.

 

Posted by Tariq Ramadan on July 25, 2007

 

 

Source

[ElPunto]

And what is the assessment of his answers yaa jamaaca?

[Naden]

^ What is your assessment?

[ElPunto]

^Too much brain activity this week - can't think today. How about you give me your thoughts - and then I will see what I can come up with.

 

Besides I asked first.

[Khalaf]

I found this interesting, check this out:

 

1. Sh. Ali Goma was quoted by newsweek as saying apostasy is allowed in Islam (Like Sh. Ramadan) here, but said he was misquoted here and that Islam doesnt allow apostasy , which is the general position taken by the ulama past and present. And Allah Knows Best.

[Naden]

ThePoint, you're the one who posted. Anyway, here's what I thought initially.

 

In general, I find Ramadan to be a very competent and thorough scholar. I think he could benefit from distancing himself from some of the lobby groups and governments with whom he's associated while parading as a spokesperson for the model European Muslim.

 

In the above, his coverage of Jihad is nothing new. However, his discussion of apostasy is pretty good. It is unfortunate that the Goma'a fellow above cannot stand by his statements in the face of editorial demagoguery.

 

I think the most spot on and mature examination is in women’s rights. I respect the approach he is advocating. No longer should the rights' debate take the parent-child format, with men scholars and writers speaking as though they are entrusted with the decision of what’s best. His statement that women should be autonomous ontologically, religiously, socially and economically can begin to open the debate on many human rights fronts, of which women’s rights are only a subset.

[ElPunto]

^I thought what he said was in general competent and intelligent also. I think he went a little too far in the suicide as jihad thing - there is always an other option. I view any attempt at justifying that as jihad to be on very shaky ground. His apostasy discussion was very interesting and illuminating though I get the sense he doesn't take a firm position either way on it. His discussion on women I found to be the most superficial. He seemed to have made significant statements but further depth was lacking. I really don't quite understand 'his' approach. What does 'women should be autonomous ontologically, religiously, socially and economically' really mean? Isn't it the case in matters of religion duty and obligation for all is what is addressed by scholars rather than autonomy? I can't remember the last time I heard Islamic scholars talk about autonomy for anyone including males. How does autonomy impact the debate - what really does its inclusion here change? I also thought the blanket statement 'female circumcision....[is] not islamic' to be mistaken and a little high-handed.

 

I respect the approach he is advocating. No longer should the rights' debate take the parent-child format, with men scholars and writers speaking as though they are entrusted with the decision of what’s best.

As you can see above I really don't quite understand his approach. Parent-child really? I guess it depends on one's own experiences. As I've said scholarly discussions center on rights and responsibilities and I guess that can be viewed as talking-down, mistakenly so in my opinion.

 

Quite frankly - I don't care a jot for whether they are men scholars or women scholars or what have you. And what's best is in fact what this religion is all about. It's central question is - how do we stay true to God's path in the changing complex world we live in over time? And to arrive at any answers to that question - what matters most is the level of knowledge of all aspects of Islam, the committment to arriving at a just consensus irrespective of technicalities and the minimization of culture and customs when talking about religious matters.

[Naden]

ThePoint,

Isn't it the case in matters of religion duty and obligation for all is what is addressed by scholars rather than autonomy?

Not really. As someone who follows the work of many scholars (most of whom do not fit the label, unfortunately), I find that writing on matters of interpersonal relationships, which is essentially where most of the output is, can do with much greater input from a diverse voice. By that, I don’t mean women as a gender alone, but people who are trained/working in other fields and not religious matters alone. When speaking of rights, it is limited severely to the married woman, and maybe a daughter. It is also phrased largely as though directed at her husband/guardian who is urged to do this & that.

 

Certain divorce laws, custody issues, inheritance problems, political participation, and a multitude of other issues have a very wide margin of interpretation and development. The way I understood his take on these issues is to have a general framework rather than a specific methodology .

 

To me, his call to renew the rights and responsibilities debate from a framework of autonomy for women is certainly a timely response to the influx of women in all arenas of social and economic participation. I don’t necessarily think that simply having a larger quota of women religious scholars fulfills the requirement for this autonomy. Training and indoctrination predict a stance much better than gender.

 

Perhaps he could have phrased his ‘unislamic’ label of circumcision or forced marriage better. There are many odious cultural practices that should not be debated in terms of Islamic/unislamic. They are simply odious and may eventually be eradicated on social, health and/or personal rights grounds.

[ElPunto]

^I agree with you there needs to be a broader involvement with other 'experts' but I think what's even more important is to make sure that those in training for religious roles get a broad based education and experience set.

 

As to married woman/daughter - I think to enumerate duties a role has to be assigned. I think everyone has these roles ie. son, brother, father, cousin etc. Of course it is not one's only definition. I think anyone who talks to women as though they are simply non-entities has no business as one who dispenses religious guidance.

 

I still think his general framework needs a lot of filling in. It is too vague and incomplete to take seriously much less say it is the right way to go.

 

My beef was was the circumcision thing only. Forced marriage is unislamic if by that we stick strictly to meaning something that is not permitted in the religion. Female circumcision of the sunna type is permitted so saying it is unislamic is simply wrong. The Somali practice of FGM is not and is in fact odious. One, though, has to be careful with the term odious. Anything permitted by God and his messenger cannot be termed odious much as they may not be to our preference. Things like polygamy and female circumcision - both of which are not to my preference as compared to odious things like FGM and forced marriage.