Tariq Ramadan has kicked off a campaign for a moratorium on the application of Shariah Law. I have heard this argument used by members of the Jamaatis ..you can only apply Shariah law when you have the prerequiste Islamic Welfare State in operation..
http://www.tariqramadan.com/call.php3?id_article=264&lang=en
Première publication : 30 March 2005, mise en ligne: Tuesday 5 April 2005,
by Tariq RAMADAN Printable version
Muslim majority societies and Muslims around the world are constantly
confronted with the fundamental question of how to implement the penalties
prescribed in the Islamic penal code.
Evoking the notion of sharî’a, or more precisely hudûd[1], the terms of the
debate are defined by central questions emerging from thought provoking
discussions taking place between ulamâ’ (scholars) and/or Muslim masses: How
to be faithful to the message of Islam in the contemporary era? How can a
society truly define itself as “Islamic” beyond what is required in the
daily practices of individual private life? But a critical and fruitful
debate has not yet materialized.
Several currents of thought exist in the Islamic world today and
disagreements are numerous, deep and recurring. Among these, a small
minority demands the immediate and strict application of hudûd, assessing
this as an essential prerequisite to truly defining a “Muslim majority
society” as “Islamic”. Others, while accepting the fact that the hudûd are
indeed found in the textual references (the Qur’an and the Sunna[2]),
consider the application of hudûd to be conditional upon the state of the
society which must be just and, for some, has to be “ideal” before these
injunctions could be applied. Thus, the priority is the promotion of social
justice, fighting against poverty and illiteracy etc. Finally, there are
others, also a minority, who consider the texts relating to hudûd as
obsolete and argue that these references have no place in contemporary
Muslim societies.
One can see the opinions on this subject are so divergent and entrenched
that it becomes difficult to discern what the respective arguments are. At
the very moment we are writing these lines- while serious debate is
virtually non-existent, while positions remain vague and even nebulous, and
consensus among Muslims is lacking- women and men are being subjected to the
application of these penalties.
For Muslims, Islam is a message of equality and justice. It is our
faithfulness to the message of Islam that leads us to recognize that it
impossible to remain silent in the face of unjust applications of our
religious references. The debate must liberate itself and refuse to be
satisfied by general, timid and convoluted responses. These silences and
intellectual contortions are unworthy of the clarity and just message of
Islam.
In the name of the scriptural sources, the Islamic teachings, and the
contemporary Muslim conscience, statements must be made and decisions need
to be taken.
put a moratorium on the penalty of hand-cutting of the thief when a drought hit Arabia in his rule and state was unable to provide food to its peoples.