This is a guest post by Ismail Moosa.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Introduction

During the last few centuries, the Muslim world has gone through a tumultuous time politically, economically, military, and also academically. Much of this can be attributed to the Western world’s colonisation, both physical and mental. Two consequences are relevant for the discussion at hand. Firstly, the enemies of the Muslims have sought to fragment us by preying on the theological and jurisprudential divides. Secondly, many Muslims have become so enamoured by the Western world that, at every turn, they attempt to mould Islām to try and make it fit Western liberal morality.

It is between these two issues that we must ensure we remain very balanced upon what is correct and true. On the one hand, in order to try and regain the former glory of the Muslim world, it would appear that we need to work together and create unity. On the other, we need to preserve the authentic Islāmic teachings and warn against those that are distorting them. Maintaining this balance is not always easy. Of course, there are no doubt legitimate differences of opinion that are to be respected. Where then do we draw the line? At what point do we say, “We desire unity—but not at the cost of diluting our precious dīn”?

While a detailed answer to this question is beyond the scope of this brief article, it suffices to say that anyone who attempts to change any law of Islām that is clear in the divine texts and which has been accepted by consensus deserves to be warned against fiercely. This holds true even more so when every issue that he or she endeavours to change is quite conspicuously something the Western world has an issue with, thus revealing the actual underlying problem.

It is my earnest opinion that Tariq Ramadan fits firmly into this dangerous category of people. As we shall see, his mission is quite clearly to deform Islām (one of his books is even titled Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation) in order to try and make it fit within a liberal framework. He opposes scholarly consensus on multiple occasions and even attempts to undermine the entire scholarly corpus starting all the way from the blessed ṣaḥābah (prophetic companions). I am not personally aware of a detailed article exposing these views and explaining the immense danger they pose. Before we get into each of these many issues, however, the following should be noted:

• As stated above, I wholeheartedly recognise the importance of unity and am willing to unite with people of varying backgrounds for the greater good. However, I also recognise the importance of defending and preserving our dīn.
• My goal here is not to mock or make personal attacks. I intend only to shine light on the highly problematic and erroneous views expressed, very publicly I might add, by the author.
• It is possible that he may have retracted from these views, though no such thing has been announced by him publicly. It is also possible that he may actually mean well and is completely oblivious to the fact that he is espousing liberal ethics. My claim is therefore not that he is necessarily consciously trying to reform Islām with a liberal agenda.
• Finally, my analysis is not exhaustive and is restricted to the works listed hereunder. I will only be quoting from the first two, but the others were read for a broader understanding. I also reference his call for a moratorium on ḥudūd punishments.

1. Radical Reform: Islam, Ethics, and Liberation
2. Islam: The Essentials
3. To Be a European Muslim
4. Islam, The West and The Challenges of Modernity

RELATED: Tariq Ramadan: The Incredible Deviance of a Reformist “Imam”

Analysis

If, in an attempt to try and align it with liberal values, a person were trying to reform the Islāmic tradition in and of itself, rather than mere Muslim behaviour, we would expect the following from him.

• To undermine the tradition and that which it is based on.
• To try to change those things that liberal morality sees as an issue. These are things like jihād, laws for women, the ḥudūd punishments, etc.
• To deny being influenced by liberalism. This is expected because a person doing this would definitely be aware of what his attempts appear as to level-headed Muslims.

Let us now look at the different ways that Tariq Ramadan attempts to reform Islām and align it with Western liberalism.

Undermining the Status and Position of the Ṣaḥābah

On page 203 of Islam: The Essentials, he says:

Throughout history, numerous Muslim scholars and intellectuals have idealised the past, and particularly the founding period. It is almost as though the Prophet’s Companions were not mortal men living and acting within history but exceptional individuals who suffered little from human weakness. Their noblest pronouncements and bravest acts are recounted and invoked, and all the while serious historical analysis of the social dynamics and political tensions of the day, of the mismanagement of the Prophet’s heritage and of the turmoil of the first post-prophetic generations are conspicuous by their absence.

As would be expected from any reformer, he starts by undermining the ṣaḥābah in a way he possibly may have considered to have been subtle, but for those who are discerning, it is quite glaringly evident. Let’s look at the issues with this excerpt. Firstly, he laments idealising the past and the founding period. This is despite our beloved Nabī (Prophet) ﷺ praising the ṣaḥābah and explicitly stating that his generation is the best, followed by the one after that, and then the one after that. There are numerous āḥādīth (prophetic narrations) which tell us quite clearly that the purest manifestation of Islām was in the first few generations, and that is why the concept of the salaf ṣāliḥ (righteous predecessors) was developed. Most Muslims would already be aware of these texts and so it would not be necessary to mention all of them here.

Secondly, he suggests quite directly that the ṣaḥābah were not at all exceptional. He foolishly tries to juxtapose this with their being mortal and having weaknesses. We reject this laughable binary outright. The ṣaḥābah were mortal men, they had weaknesses, but they were indeed extraordinarily exceptional. To deny this reality is to undermine a point of consensus within our tradition. Thirdly, he attacks the idea that we only recount the good relayed of the ṣaḥābah and ignore what he deems to be their “mistakes.” This is yet another rather devious binary. We only recount the good to the public and the general masses, but we do examine the complexities of history critically within scholarly circles. Would he rather that we speak ill of the ṣaḥābah? Or does he deny that the Islāmic scholarly tradition has not ignored the events of the first century?

Fourthly, he accuses the ṣaḥābah of mismanaging the heritage of the Prophet ﷺ. What’s worse is that he doesn’t even clarify what he means by this. Is this how we talk about the blessed ṣaḥābah? And that too in a book called Islam: The Essentials? It would appear that it is absolutely essential for him to diminish the status of the ṣaḥābah in order to further his reformist agenda.

RELATED: The Obligation of Defending the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum

Undermining the Scholarly Tradition and All the Scholars of the Past

On page 36 of Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation, he says:

This observation is now so obvious that it entails, by induction, that we should not only question the practice of fiqh but also the nature of its fundamentals and the categorization of its sources. As suggested earlier, it is at the level of the fundamentals of usûl al-fiqh that questions must be raised: was the classical tradition right when it restricted the sources of law to the texts alone (and to the modalities of their interpretation), or should we question this restriction…

Not much needs to be said about the above. It is clear that he feels that not only fiqh (jurisprudence/law) but also uṣūl al-fiqh (the principles used to derive law from the sources of sharīʿah) is outdated and needs to be called into question. Something that will be a common theme as we analyse his writings is that they might sound intellectual on the surface level, but when they are explored further and explained, they are seen to be devoid of any sensibility whatsoever. With respect to the excerpt above, he had begun his discussion by stating that understanding today’s world is far more difficult and that one jurist cannot encompass all the requisite knowledge required to make informed fiqhī (jurisprudential) judgements. Therefore, we need to question the very fundamentals of fiqh and its sources. He also claims that we have restricted its sources to the texts alone.

Both of these claims are completely bereft of any depth. The fuqahāʾ (expert jurists) have classically always discussed getting expert advice from people of different sciences, like doctors, in order to pass effective rulings. This is not some new concept. Even in the time of the early jurists, it was not easy for them to be expert jurists and know the worldly sciences. So, they would seek advice. This is common knowledge to anyone with even an inkling of familiarity with the tradition. But more egregious than this is his claim that the principles of fiqh restrict the sources of law to the text. Any beginner knows that ʿurf (customary practise), maṣāliḥ mursalah (taking into account public benefit), and sadd al-dharāʾiʿ (blocking the means) are all sources of law in nearly every book of uṣūl across the madhhabs (schools of law), with different levels of acceptance of course. It would take someone that is either totally unaware of the books of uṣūl or is intentionally trying to deceive people to be making such statements.

On pages 216 and 217 of Islam: The Essentials, he says:

The cultural and patriarchal environment that enveloped the male scholars and jurists who studied and elaborated on the Texts could not but shape their understanding of those very Texts. As a result the Islamic literature dealing with women is triply distorted… it gives priority to parts (certain verses..) in contradiction to the whole (the general and ultimate goals of the Message); it confounds cultural norms with religious principles.

 

The impact upon the interpretation of the Texts has been extremely serious. Even the greatest and most revered scholars have produced reductionist and dangerous commentaries that can be used to justify the most inappropriate behaviour.” He also says on page 226 of Radical Reform, “Fuqahāʾ very often remain silent and sometimes share in such hypocritical male deviations.

I hope the need for this analysis is becoming clearer and clearer. With the above excerpts, Tariq Ramadan, in one fell swoop, intends to discredit any and all scholarly works that disagree with his liberal “non-patriarchal” agenda. The insidious nature of these comments is clear as day. Nonetheless, there are still a few important things to note. When he says that early scholars were influenced by a patriarchal environment, he is indirectly accusing the ṣaḥābah of perpetuating this. This is because the ṣaḥābah were the first generation of scholars whose opinions were built upon and expounded. Very rarely did the tradition deviate from what the ṣaḥābah agreed on. If that is the case, then they too must have been shaped in a certain way to have come up with a similar type of thought. Any idea where they would have learnt any of this from? The dangerous nature of his statements should be plain.

Beyond this, the brazen way that he accuses even the most revered scholars of producing dangerous and reductionist commentaries reeks of hubris. So this would effectively mean that all of our great ʿulamāʾ (scholars) were reductionist in their thinking, in that “they overly simplify a complex issue by breaking it down into its most basic components, often neglecting the nuances and important interactions between those parts.” It is only him and modern “scholars” of his ilk that are capable of seeing the big picture. For those of us who love our ʿulamāʾ, like Imām al-Bukhārī, Imām al-Ghazālī, etc., whilst we acknowledge they may have erred in certain areas, insulting all of them like this is simply going too far.

To get a better idea of how he views scholarly works and his lack of ability to understand them, we can observe his comments on the same page (217).

Who, from the twelfth century on, has ruled that the marriage contract was equivalent to the master-slave relationship? Who, down to the present day, has justified conjugal violence?

A reminder that these comments are being made in a book called Islam: The Essentials. Here, in his simplistic and reductionist reading, he thinks that jurists, because they used uniform terminology for all contracts, equated all contracts. The absurdity of that is only compounded when he says this started in the twelfth century, whereas this language is found much earlier. He is unaware of the absolute basics of jurisprudence, and yet, he has the nerve to criticise all of the scholars who had dedicated their entire lives to it and knew more than he ever will. This is not rhetoric. He quite clearly doesn’t understand anything about fiqh if he thinks the jurists equated between those contracts or if he thinks that this is something that started in the twelfth century.

RELATED: Are Wives Responsible for Housework in Islam?

Rejecting Offensive Jihad

On page 157 of Islam: The Essentials, he says:

Jihād must then be seen as an ‘effort of resistance and reform’. Contrary to contemporary perceptions, it has no connection whatsoever with the call to war, for the sake of war.

While trying to cover his bases by saying “for the sake of war,” this is quite simply nothing more than a diversion. No one wages war for the sake of war anyway, so the point is moot. It is always for some sort of benefit. Jiḥād most certainly has a direct link with the call to war. This is the start of his chipping away at the concept of offensive jihād.

On page 161, he says:

As a general rule, war may be fought only in situations of resistance and must never be launched to acquire colonies, to occupy territory, to gain access to natural resources or impose religion by conversion.

His ridiculous binaries are becoming quite a noticeable trend. So he says war can only be fought as a means of resistance and not for the opposite, which is to occupy territory, etc. However, as should be obvious, one can wage jihād that is not for resistance but to spread the justice of Islām and its message and, thereby, induce conversions. So, there is no binary. A jihād can be offensive without falling into any of the categories he has negated.

We must ask what he would say about our beloved Prophet ﷺ ordering raids on trade caravans over and over again? Or going to attack the Romans, although they had not attacked yet but, rather, because of a perceived threat? What about the ṣaḥābah dismantling the Sassanid and Byzantine empires? What would he classify that as? Defensive jihād? Or would he criticise these acts? How did Islām reach his ancestors if not through offensive jihād, which spread the justice of Islām throughout the world.

The last point to be made is that this capitulation to Western inquiries regarding offensive jihād is just pure spinelessness. The West will attack and destroy countries offensively and then have the gall to question you about offensive jihād. And what do you do? Instead of pointing out their double standard and defending your faith, you capitulate. The reality is that, in the past and to a great extent today, it is not possible to have a state with its own way of life contrary to the prevailing norm and be completely safe from attack. You must anticipate serious threats and deal with them through offensive jihād. Though, that being said, he (and others like him) would likely respond by desperately claiming such a scenario is a form of pre-emptive defensive jihād. As a final point, wouldn’t you, as a Muslim who believes the laws of Islām to be perfect, want those laws implemented throughout the world?

On page 163 of Islam: The Essentials, he criticizes Muslims of the past who have waged wars of expansion, upheld slavery, and targeted civilians. He says that they were acting contrary to the principles of their religion. Didn’t the Prophet ﷺ and the ṣaḥābah uphold slavery, although it was a humane form unlike Western slavery? Is he deleting that from the sīrah (biography) of the Prophet ﷺ? Nothing more needs to be said in this regard.

Whilst we believe that, for the most part, Muslims were the most humane throughout history, he says that “Muslims, in their long history, have often been far from just and peace loving. Islamic history is rife with war, with oppression, with exploitation and colonisation.” Again, this is another brazen attempt to make us disassociate ourselves from our glorious history. Who exactly is he talking about? Which dynasties? The Ottomans, the Umayyads, or the Rashidun Caliphate? He doesn’t specify, but we can hazard a guess.

Anyway, this is sufficient for the purposes of this article. For further reading on the issue of offensive jihād, you may refer to Muftī Taqi Usmani’s very detailed article on the matter.

RELATED: Is Jihad ONLY Defensive? Did Islam Spread by the Sword? (UNAPOLOGETIC Answer)

Denying the Desire for Martyrdom

On page 237 of Islam: The Essentials, he says:

Some extremist groups, for example, have fabricated justifications for the idea of martyrdom in Islam…. But under no circumstances is it right to invert the order of priorities and, like some extremist groups, celebrate death..

I’ll just leave you with the following ḥadīth from Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (36).

Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any expedition going for jihād and I would have loved to be martyred in Allāh’s cause, and then brought to life, and then martyred, and then brought to life, and then again martyred in His cause.

Contrary to his flimsy binary, celebrating martyrdom does not mean inverting the order of priorities. Dying to protect Islām is for the sake of the life of others in this world and dying to spread Islām is for the sake of the life of others in the hereafter.

Claims There Are Double Standards in Islāmic Law for Men and Women

On page 220 of Islam: The Essentials, he says:

Why, we might ask, are their legal rulings less strict when it comes to men?… What is troubling is that such rulings apply only to women and not to men, who would appear not to be bound by the same rules in what they show and in what they look at. Nothing, least of all a strictly masculine reading, can justify this tendentious interpretation.

Tariq appears to have fallen headfirst into full-blown feminism here in this passage, intimating that women and men should subject to the exact same laws. This is not even what we see in the West, where a woman has to cover slightly more than the man. He feels that these different rulings are based on the Jurists’ masculine reading of the texts and are unjustifiable. However, these are taken directly from the Qurʾān and sunnah (prophetic example). The Qurʾān orders women to draw a jilbāb over themselves and does not order men to do the same (33:59). The Qurʾān orders women to draw a khimār over their chests and doesn’t order the men to do the same (24:31). The Prophet ﷺ said that women must cover almost their entire body (Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 4104), while men must cover from the navel to the knees (Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 3140).

So, is the Qurʾān and the ḥadīth literature unjustifiable? What exactly is he saying? Again, he says something without saying it directly. He has an issue with treating the genders differently even though this is precisely what Allāh and His Rasūl (Messenger) ﷺ did. Moreover, from a logical point of view, it makes no sense to treat them the same when they are undeniably different. This is nothing but kowtowing to Western ideologies without trying to be reflective and critical. In fact, he does to a much greater extent exactly what he constantly accuses traditional scholars and all of our previous scholars of doing. While he claims they were shaped by the patriarchal societies they lived in, he is so thoroughly shaped and awed by the Western world he lives in that he is prepared to change the laws of the Qurʾān and sunnah to try and fit their narrative.

RELATED: Understanding Why Women Belong in the Home

Women Should Struggle Against Imposition of the Headscarf and Staying at Home for Religious Reasons

He says about women on page 221 of Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation:

They must struggle against all formalist dictatorships, both that which imposes the headscarf without belief in the practice coming from the heart and that which imagines all objectified female bodies fit into a size six dress, that which compels women to stay at home for religious reasons and that which sends them back home after the age of forty-five for aesthetic reasons.

It is in these sentences that we can truly observe the deification of liberal thought over the sharīʿah. Let’s break this down. Tariq Ramadan thinks that Muslim women should fight against the imposition of the headscarf, which forces it even if the act itself doesn’t derive from the heart. So why this particular law of sharīʿah? I mean it is most certainly a law that there is consensus upon, so why should this particular Islāmic law not be imposed and only be done when it comes from the heart, while the same approach is not applied to other things? Would he advocate for the Islāmic law of men respecting women to only be applied if the men feel in their hearts that this is something they really want to do? Ideally, every injunction of sharīʿah that is acted upon should come from the heart. This is not something specific only to the headscarf. And every law of sharīʿah should be imposed under an Islāmic government.

Would he think that nudists should fight against the imposition of wearing clothes unless they felt in their hearts that it is something they truly desire? In reality, the reason why he would say that an imposition of men respecting women is something that should be applied, while not being consistent when it comes to the headscarf, is because the former causes harm to people. And under the liberal paradigm, whatever causes harm is prohibited, but everything else is fine to either do or not do depending on what you personally desire. So, the laws of Islām that conform to the liberal paradigm, like men respecting women, must be imposed, whereas those that do not, like wearing headscarf, must be left volitional. In essence, the divine law is subject to the manmade law.

It is inconceivable to him that not wearing the headscarf can cause harm because the liberal paradigm only judges the short term (that’s why zinā, i.e., fornication, isn’t an issue). This is despite the fact that we know that every law of the sharīʿah, if not followed, will inevitably result in harm.

RELATED: Hijab Is Not a Choice

Inheritance Laws Can Change, and Divorce Is Too Easy for Men

In Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation, pages 227 and 228, he says the following:

Making marriage, divorce, and polygamy so easy for men (unlike women) and moreover repeating bluntly that inheritance rules are based on final, incontrovertible (qat’iyyah) verses maintains a state of blindness that makes it impossible to solve problems.

The sharīʿah made divorce easier for men than women. Not any jurist. Only a man has the inherent right to issue ṭalāq (divorce) by consensus as per the divine texts. Apparently, holding onto the sharīʿah maintains a state of blindness. What’s worse is that he could have defended himself by saying that although sharīʿah allows it, ṭalāq should not be issued so willy-nilly and that this is what he meant by divorce being so easy for men and it being an issue. However, why add the clause “unlike women”? If divorce were made too easy for men as well as women, would he be okay with that? So long as there is “equality,” even if it results in the derailment of nikāḥ (marriage) and single parents, Mr. Ramadan is okay with it. Let us now see what he goes onto to explain regarding inheritance laws.

The most emblematic case is that of inheritance. In many cases, a woman may receive as much as a man, or more. In direct filiation (parents–children), however, a daughter receives half the son’s share. All fuqahâ’ have repeated that this can be explained through the goals and the Islamic philosophy of the respective responsibilities of men and women: women keep their money for themselves while men spend theirs to provide for the whole family’s needs as well as their own. But what should be done when, in contemporary families and societies, this logic of solidarity no longer works, when men have (willingly or not) abdicated their financial responsibilities and women find themselves alone, sometimes without an extended family, with several dependent children? Is it enough to repeat the “final, incontrovertible norm,” without paying attention to context, and thus support obvious injustice? Or should we, on the contrary, revise the implementation of the texts or suspend their application…

The inanity of these statements can be understood by considering the following. Even if what he was saying was possible, if the society was not giving women their rights and not taking care of them, what makes you think they will distribute the inheritance as per your dictates? It is the impracticability of almost all of his statements that are the most troubling. He claims to be talking about on the ground realities but only makes statements that will please his Western audience and which have no practical benefit. This will be seen even more clearly in the last point on ḥudūd punishments.

What he is suggesting here is typical of reformists. Under the guise of the maqāṣid (higher objectives of sharīʾah) or wisdoms, they want to do away with the laws of sharīʿah. So, the wisdom behind women getting less is because they have less responsibilities. So, they reason, if the wisdom is not there, we should do away with the ruling altogether. Would the same then apply to ṣalāh (the ritual prayer)? If the wisdom of ṣalāh is to connect you with Allāh, but praying five times a day is too difficult and is making you dislike Islām and be disconnected from Allāh, should ṣalāh be dropped? Of course not. Again, I want the reader to notice that he chose yet another issue that the West has a problem with.

There is no doubt that if the rights of anyone are not being fulfilled, Muslims must do their best to ensure that they are assisted. This can be done in many different ways and never needs to involve changing the direct laws of God, about which He Himself said, “˹This is˺ an obligation from Allāh. Surely Allāh is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, verse 12)

It is so fitting that Allāh reminds us after these verses that He is All-Knowing and All-Wise, and we are not. We can never encompass all of the wisdoms and reasons behind certain laws. That’s the reason why Allāh blessed us with the sharīʿah. If we feel the wisdom is not being fulfilled; or the higher objective is not being met, it will not undermine the law. This is because the law is based on far more than we can possibly comprehend.

RELATED: Reviewing Yaqeen Institute: A Source of Certainty or Doubt?

Says There Is No Issue in Shaking Hands with a Woman Even Considering the Ḥadīth on the Topic

He says on page 220 of Islam: The Essentials:

People in the West are shocked at the sight of men who refuse to shake women’s hands, and vice versa, or women who refuse to be examined by a male physician. But opinions differ widely on these subjects. The Prophet most certainly declared that he, personally, would not shake a woman’s hand, but there is no reason why his behaviour should be binding on all Muslims. The relatively numerous prophetic traditions that prohibit touching and physical proximity refer to contact involving sexual desire and not to ordinary, everyday contact.

There is zero difference of opinion amongst the four madhhabs that directly shaking hands with a young, ghayr maḥram (someone who is not unmarriageable kin or a spouse) of the opposite gender is impermissible. But Mr. Ramadan wants us to abandon this consensus because? You guessed it. It shocks and is abhorrent to the West. Oh no, we would never do anything to shock or displease the West!

But he goes even further. He says that yes, the Prophet ﷺ may have said he would never do it, but “why should his behaviour be binding on all Muslims?” Really? I mean, he is our beloved Prophet, right? The one who we see as the greatest role model? Whilst not all his actions are binding, we try our best to follow them.

His ignorance of the divine texts cannot be overstated. Consider the following.

It has been narrated from Maʿqil ibn Yasār (may Allāh be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “It is better for an iron nail to be driven into one of your heads than for him to touch a woman who is not lawful for him (i.e., to touch).” (Al-Muʿjam al-Kabir of al-Ṭabarāni, 486)

Is this not sufficient enough reason, or does pleasing the West override this as well? Since even he is aware of the fact that what he is saying is in stark conflict with the divine texts, he tries to explain them away by claiming they relate only to when there is the accompaniment of sexual desire. So, the prohibition of shaking hands applies only if there is sexual desire accompanying it, otherwise its fine. Well then, what about the prohibition of hugging, kissing on the cheek, and being alone with a woman? Do these only apply if there is sexual desire present? If there’s no sexual desire, you can hold hands, spend time in your office alone with a female, and maybe even watch movies where women are semi-nude or even completely nude. Does this sound even remotely Islāmic to you? Without wanting to disrespect anyone, this is a farcical sort of justification that only someone unfamiliar with the tradition could have come up with.

RELATED: Ikhtilāṭ: A Critical But Neglected Islamic Prohibition

Encouraging Muslims to Integrate, Be Loyal to Western Society, and Talk Less About Islām

On pages 249 and 250 of Islam: The Essentials, he says:

The time has come not only to integrate – most Muslims have reached and even moved beyond this stage – but to contribute actively to the organisation and reform of their societies for the well being of all. This mean, paradoxically, that Muslims should speak less of Islam, that they should leave behind them and put aside their obsession with defining their religious identity, in order to take a direct interest in the dignity and public welfare of their fellow citizens and of their fellow human beings – irrespective of belief – in education and social justice, in women’s rights… in culture and the arts.

The wonderful conversions we are seeing to Islām in the West are a result of Muslims being proud of their identity and speaking about Islām. But Mr. Ramadan doesn’t want that. He wants Muslims in the West to stop talking about Islām, to become one with society, to contribute to it, and to be loyal to it. The same countries that looted and pillaged Muslim lands and continue to fund the killing of Muslims should be respected, and Muslims should strive to become one with them and be loyal contributors to their society?

Most absurdly, he seems to separate Islām from the concept of striving for the best interest of their fellow citizens. What could be better for them than Islām? Does Islām not have the solutions to the social maladies of the time? Or is it something we should practise in private whilst becoming one with Western culture in public? I for one am delighted that our Muslims in the West by and large ignored this pathetic drivel and are actively giving daʿwah and thereby directly benefitting people.

Calling for a Moratorium on Ḥudūd Punishments

In his article titled, An International Call for Moratorium on Corporal Punishment, Stoning and the Death Penalty in the Islamic World, he says the following:

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…

We now arrive at the pinnacle of his moronic quixotic offerings. The full article is rather lengthy, and in it he claims that ḥudūd punishments (referring to the death penalty, stoning, and all other corporal punishments) are prejudiced against the poor and are not always implemented justly. This a relatively uncontested claim. However, his wonderful solution is to put an end to all Islāmic punishments.

Now let me ask you a few questions. He published this call for a moratorium for the world to see. Do you think any country was actually going to listen to Mr. Ramadan? Of course not. Did he know this? Of course he did. So why did he do it? Well, to show his Western audience that Muslims oppose the things they dislike about Islām. But let’s go a little further. Imagine you were the ruler of a Muslim country, and you decided to take him seriously. How would that work on a practical level? You would now have no punishment for murderers, thieves, adulterers, and bandits. How would you punish these crimes? Would you let them go unpunished? Can you see the absurd impracticality?

It gets worse. You would probably have to punish them somehow, because this moratorium will last until there is good scholarly discussion around this, which may take years or even decades. So you would then have to implement Western forms of punishment. Prison would now be the only recourse for killers and thieves. But wait a second. Doesn’t the Western system—for our purposes, America—also punish people unjustly? Aren’t their systems also prejudiced and replete with problems? Shouldn’t a moratorium be called on prisons where men and women are being raped on a daily basis, where innocents are being jailed for crimes they didn’t commit, where rich people can pay to hire the best lawyers and escape punishment for almost anything? Or is this moratorium merely a show for his Western friends? I mean, even many non-Muslim countries still have the death penalty.

RELATED: Answering Modernist Objections to Hudud – Mufti Taqi Usmani

Conclusion

Whilst we strive for unity as a Muslim ummah, we cannot do so without preserving the Qurʾān, sunnah, and consensus of the ṣaḥābah. To fail to do so would be to lose the very essence of our perfect dīn. Whilst Tariq Ramadan may speak well, while he may fight for certain Muslim causes, and may even be well-intentioned, his views on the sharīʿah are nothing short of reformist. His knowledge on the sharīʿah and Islāmic traditions are well below par. Muslims should be wary of these types of individuals that, even though they may not do it intentionally, are deforming and distorting the dīn to try and make it fit Western narratives, and they are undermining the finality of the sharīʿah. There are plenty of orthodox, traditional scholars who have much to offer. As Muslims, we should not be swayed by popularity or sweet talk. Rather, we must seek knowledge from those who have spent their lives preserving Islām and conveying it faithfully. As for reformists, we say to them plainly: Islām is not in need of reform. If you don’t agree with Islām on certain aspects, go and make up your own personal cult or false religion. But don’t approach the Qurʾān and ḥadīth and twist them beyond recognition in order to try and make it seem as though what you are saying represents Islām. We, as Muslims true to our faith, will not stand for this.

RELATED: Modernists and Zanādiqah: Muslims Must Tolerate Our Brazen Attacks Against Islām!

Bibliography

Ramadan, Tariq. Islam: The Essentials. Penguin Random House, 2017.

Ramadan, Tariq. Radical Reform: Islam, Ethics, and Liberation. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Ramadan, Tariq. An International Call for Moratorium on Corporal Punishment, Stoning and the Death Penalty in the Islamic World, April 5, 2015. https://tariqramadan.com/an-international-call-for-moratorium-on-corporal-punishment-stoning-and-the-death-penalty-in-the-islamic-world/.