Tariq Ramadan’s appeal for President Yameen to stop imminent execution

My name is Tariq Ramadan, and I am Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford. I recently visited the Maldives (November 2015) where I met you after the Friday sermon that I gave at the Grand Mosque in Malé. I was invited by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs and I met with numerous knowledgeable Ministers and religious representatives. I was also party to many interesting discussions regarding the implementation of sharī’ah, the criminal justice system and possible reforms. During these discussions I expressed the importance of ensuring that every criminal defendant receives a fair and transparent trial. I have supported, based on Islamic understanding of the scriptural sources and the strict conditions required by the Islamic penal code (ḥudūd), the moratorium you implemented on the death penalty. I write now to express my concern about the forthcoming execution of Hussain Humaam Ahmed, which I understand is scheduled for later this month.

I understand that there are a number of concerns about the safety of the conviction and sentence in Humaam’s case. It has been reported that Humaam’s “confession” was forced from him after the authorities threatened to harm his family, a form of duress which undermines the fairness of his trial at the most basic level. In addition, Humaam’s family maintains that he has a mental disability, and yet no independent psychiatric assessment has taken place. This means that there is a risk that the Maldives will execute a mentally disabled individual, which is prohibited under international law. As you know, according to Islamic law and jurisprudence, any doubt about the mental health of a murderer, should play in his favour. The heavy conditions we find in the Islamic legislation have as a raison d’être (‘illah) to avoid any doubt: if there is the slightest doubt, then the punishment (ḥad) should be suspended.

I am also particularly concerned that the Maldives intends to proceed with the execution despite the fact that the victim’s father and brother have both explicitly stated that they do not wish for the sentence of death to be implemented. This call to spare Humaam’s life by two members of the victim’s family cannot be ignored. Once again, according to the principle of qiṣās, if the family of the victim asks for the sentence not to be implemented, at any time before the execution (for the majority of the ‘ulamā’), the latter should be suspended whatever the public authority might think or decide.