And the collusion of Muslims around the world in this “literal and non-contextualised application” of sharia law is a betrayal of the teachings of Islam.Muslim critics have attacked Professor Ramadan for this, accusing him of being a sell-out, or of promoting Islam-lite The Swiss academic is sanguine about this “The more literal will say I am Westernising But I am not losing the universal principles. I’m just not confusing them with the culture of the countries that Muslims have traditionally come from. There’s no consensus among scholars that the conditions are in place for these penalties to be enforced And if there’s a doubt it should be in favour of the poor Islam is centrally about justice. These penalties are Koranic but, he argues – in a way designed to persuade Muslims who fear they will appear to betray the Islamic scriptural sources – the original social conditions under which they were set are nearly impossible to re-establish The penalties, therefore, are “almost never applicable”. He cites historical Islamic precedents for the suspension of such punishments.”Islam is being used to degrade and subjugate women and men in certain Muslim societies,” he says.
It’s important to read the scriptures of the other faiths and see how the others interpret these common values. It’s high time for Muslims to say that anti-Semitism is not acceptable. We have to ask questions of our own tradition and be self-critical about what is sectarian and racist. Only then can our society build a common future.”If all of this sounds uncontroversial to most Western secularists it has got Tariq Ramadan into hot water with fellow Muslims – most particularly for speaking out against Islamic punishments such as the cutting off of hands for theft, stoning for adultery and the use of the religion to oppress women.His arguments for this are all Islamic.
Ours must be a constructive and critically participative loyalty.”The third change required is far greater inter-religious dialogue. “If you go back to the source of our religions you find common values. “Now it’s time to speak out – both against those who are doing these things in the name of our religion and against those who say that being a loyal British citizen means blindly accepting all the decisions of the British Government. I am not discounting the fact that there is a strong intellectual argument for saying that in a democracy the results of the election should reflect the wishes of the electorate How that is determined is the issue,” he says. He suspects the public wants to maintain the link between MPs and their constituencies and ensure a clear election result, both of which are achieved by the existing first-past-the-post system. “I accept that there is a further argument that says there ought to be a greater connection between the votes cast and the result I remain open-minded about that I am not yet persuaded,” he says.
He has one crumb of comfort for PR campaigners, promising that there will be a public debate. Mr Hoon advocates a horses- for-courses approach on electoral systems. “I don’t believe necessarily that you choose one system for all purposes. I think you choose the system that is consistent with the purposes of the institution that is being elected. Therefore I think you can perfectly properly have different kinds of electoral system,” he says.
