jayasankar’s comments

on a discussion at FEC about Tariq Ramadan

The question, if you remember, was whether there a source other than Hitchens that this futurist had talked of a 'moratorium on stoning of women'. I had just put in those links answering your question. The first link was the actual Transcript which proved that he had. From that you have decided what all I have read and gone on to extrapolate and even found the tint my eye rather than address the issue on hand. 

Coming back to Ramadan, I had read quite a few pieces by him during this search. Complex issues should not be dumbed down, but the pretension of  sophistication and contextualizing should not be used to obfuscate. Ramadan's writings scream that intend. Personally, I find it incredible that someone who primarily bases most of his arguments on 'scripture'/'words of god', which are always stuff written by men with their own intend and agenda which may be relevant or irrelevant for the times can be considered a 'futurist'. Would you give the same leeway to a fascist Paramahams, P.Parameshwaran  who have their own 'words of god' or to Protestant Pastors, who are impatiently waiting for Jesus to come back and fight Satan's troops at Jerusalem? Please remember, I am not saying you should - I am just raising a parallel. And also remember, all these affect policies and also the lives of flesh and blood people. Truth remains the only effective disinfectant. 

Coming back to his arguments this essay itself that you have pasted IMHO is a retrogressive, illogical, badly written piece which invents history and context and within that framework gives a completely irrelevant and pretentiously worded 'solution'. The whole essay falls flat on its first assumption itself - the implicit assumption that the Ulema has a right to decide on these issues and that too pan-globally. Theocracy, though nicely worded. He then reaches a completely antithetic conclusion - "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 toward spirituality, demands education, justice and the respect of pluralism. " 

He is so bad, Arun Shourie is actually superior to him, in the seeming intend of what they try to do. 

Coming back at last to the issue on hand at last - stoning of women for adultery. 

Law evolves and solidifies based on that society's conception of justice. So as conceptions of justice evolves, law also has to change but the pace and implementation will depend on the context. Adultery may have been once, in tribal societies something which was so harmful to the general well being that laws were codified to punish it by stoning. I think that there can be a generic agreement that stoning women for adultery NOW is retrogressive. Considering any society to be retards which cannot understand reasoned arguments, who need to be 'enlightened' by suave middle men like Ramadan, who has seen the real truth and whose stand seems to depend on who his audience is, is inherently harmful.