This article was originally published by the daily newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, on May 17th 2009 (pag. 1 and 9)

Many things have happened recently that deserve comment and perhaps people expect me to write today expressing my opinion on the subject of immigration. However, our newspaper hosted a wonderful interview by Giuseppe Pisanu last Wednesday, while yesterday I found myself addressing the first answer received from one of the Islamic intellectuals that on April 5th I had pressed, from this very paper, to assume a clear position on the Afghan law that goes against the rights of women. I cannot ignore this answer, just as I cannot ignore the fact that others, firstly Tariq Ramadan, have instead remained silent.

I received an answer from the “Resetdoc.org” website from Abu Zayd, a professor at the Dutch universities of Leiden and Utrecht and known for his exegeses of the Koran, addressed at clarifying and hence restricting the influence of later historical contexts on the meaning to be given to the words one reads there. On this basis, Abu Zaid’s condemnation of the Afghan law is extremely clear. “This backward decision taken by the Afghan government under pressure from radical groups, whoever they are, is a return to the Middle Ages. The Shari`a espoused by those radical groups, and even by other groups who like to present themselves as moderates, is nothing but the legal articulation of similar groups in medieval Islam…Compared with the legal discourse of the early pioneers of Islamic law, this reclaimed Shari`a is very distant from the obvious meaning of the foundational sources of Islam. Compared with the definition of marriage in Shari`a where the marriage contract consists of buying and selling the woman as if it were a merchandise, the Qur’an provides marriage with a high status.”

“Both men and women – continues Abu Zayd – are equal partners in this creative process of reproduction. It is in the domain of social life that the Qur’an recognizes the differences and tries to modify the existing male authoritative society… All the differences described by the Qur’an in the social domain are only recognized, but not totally acknowledged. They were totally acknowledged and further developed in the opposite direction of the Qur’an, by the jurists who produced what is now known as Shari`a. Shari`a, after all, is a historical human understanding of the Qur’an according to the medieval norms which the Qur’an itself opposes. The question and the challenge now for Muslims now is the obligation to acknowledge, respect and implement, in our modern social domain, where equality, freedom and human rights are the norm, the absolute equality expressed in the Qur’an at a higher level. Shall we upgrade the social values of the Qur’an to the level of the cosmological, spiritual and ethical domain, or continue the medieval downgrading of these Qur’anic value under the reclamation of Shari`a?”.

This is not all that is contained in Abu Zayd’s letter. So as to avoid being drawn into the trap posed by opposing interpretations of the texts, he fortifies his own with examples of Mohammed’s real behaviour to women. He reminds us that the Prophet was a loving husband and father to his daughters and that he “never raised his voice” at them. He even opposed the wish expressed by his cousin and son-in-law Alì, when he wanted to take a second wife (in addition to Fatima, Mohammed’s daughter). “Extremists must tell us if Mohammed acted in conflict with the Koran. Or, they must understand that polygamy is only tolerated and is not a juridical right.”

It is of the utmost importance that texts such as these should be made known and valorised. Too many of us, influenced by what is emphasised by the media, are induced to think that Islam and the Koran coincide precisely with the extremist interpretations that are the result of backwardness, and that by no coincidence now still prevail in backward countries. This is a very serious mistake and, on the other hand, to acknowledge this it is sufficient to observe, in addition to the media, all that we are surrounded by in our daily lives. On Friday I attended graduation day at the American University in Rome and there the spiritual message was provided by the Imam Sheik Osama, with words no different than those a Christian priest would have used speaking to the many girls graduating.

The first problem however, consists in making heard the words of people like Abu Zayd in the countries in which the Taleban’s power is increasing, and hence also in Afghanistan, where that dire law is still in force and where the women who oppose it are desperately alone and a minority. What has happened there since I last wrote simply confirms this. There was a protest on 14 April in Kabul with a little over three hundred women, besieged by a large majority of young and adult men insulting them (“prostitutes” they shouted) and threatening the “slaves of Christians” with death. Three days earlier Sitara Achakzai, known for her participation in women’s battles, had been murdered in Kandahar, shot by her assassins when leaving her home.

Faced with all this I can only observe that condemnation of Shari’ a such as the one expressed by Abu Zayd is like the classical swallow that does not mean summer has come. It is thus because alone it does not have the power to change the orientation prevailing in Kabul. It would not be so if it were accompanied by the mobilisation of all Muslims who agree with him and, broadcast by the media in Europe and in Afghanistan, which would obtain one initial fundamental result. It would silence all those many people who have an easy time over there, saying as they do, that “we cannot allow NATO ministers to tell us what to do.”

It is here that I uneasily observe the increasing responsibilities of an Islamic intellectual who more than any other manages to ensure people listen to him, and whose voice therefore has the greatest echo, Tariq Ramadan. I had ask him too to speak, and he is perfectly informed regards to my request, but for the moment still remains silent. Well-aware of what he has written I had safeguarded myself and excluded that his silence could be justified in any way. It cannot be justified by fear that he or others might be asked here to justify themselves for the extremism of the Taleban, because this is not what is asked of them. They are asked simply to condemn it. It cannot be justified by fear of distancing themselves excessively from what the majority of Muslims believe, and hence of not being listened to by them, because if one cannot find the courage to speak out about what one considers right on the basis of the Koran on such subjects, then it would be best to give up being a maitre à penser.

I am now told that Ramadan has promised to answer and that he will participate with me in a round table to be held on June 2nd on the subject of multiculturalism in Europe. I sincerely hope he will answer as soon as possible, for the correct timing for doing something useful for Afghan women is rapidly passing away. And this is an answer he owes them, not me.

Giuliano Amato is Professor Emeritus of the EUI in Florence and gives yearly seminars at the Law School of the N.Y Columbia University. Member of Parliament for 18 years, he was Minister for the Treasury, Minister for Constitutional Reforms, Minister of Interior and twice Prime Minister (in 1992/1993 and in 2000/2001). He was Vice-President of the Convention on the Future of Europe (2002/2003). Currently he chairs the Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana and the Center for American Studies in Rome. He is a member of the Board of Governors of Reset-Dialogues on Civilizations.

Translated by Francesca Simmons