On Tarek Ramadan
One of my favorite sites, the Agonist, posted this flawed piece on Tariq Ramadan yesterday. I’d like to explain a few of the issues that I have with it.
First, the reliance on Lee Smith’s analysis in Slate is highly dubious. Smith is a poor source of expertise on the Arab world, and the reasons why have been explored elsewhere, notably on Abu Aardvark.
Secondly, and even more so than reliance on Smith, the author of the article gives credibility to the writings of Daniel Pipes, who is described as “a board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace, one of four members of the Presidium of the Jerusalem Summit, ostensibly a conservative organization that includes distinguished Israeli academics.” Pipes is much more than this, he is a member and former head of the Middle East Forum, one of the most pro-Likudnik think tanks and pressure groups in the US. He has a long track record of Arab-bashing and foaming-at-the-mouth pro-Israel propaganda spouting. He is hardly an impartial informed commentator. The article also fails to mention that Pipes’ appointment to the US Institute for Peace was extremely controversial and that in the end Bush had to take advantage of a congressional recess to pass it.
Thirdly, another source quoted is Stephen Schwartz (a frequent contributor to right-wing magazines such as the National Review, the Weekly Standard and FrontPage), who advocates not allowing Ramadan into the US and seems to think that the Beirut Daily Star, a relatively timid liberal English-language newspaper, is the mouthpiece of Arab nationalism. Take a look at the passage that was quoted from Schwartz’s piece (on the generally right-wing TechCentralStation):
Even Hicham Chehab, news editor of the Beirut Daily Star, a newspaper obviously dedicated to Arab interests, was forced to admit early this month that “During the controversial visit to Britain last July by Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi, himself accused of sanctioning suicide bombers, Ramadan defended Qaradawi on the BBC television program ‘Hard Talk.’”
This implies that a) even the Daily Star was forced to admit something negative about Ramadan, as if he’s not controversial at all in the Arab world; b) Ramadan defending Qaradawi automatically makes him pro-suicide bombers; and c) doesn’t even examine the controversy about what Qaradawi actually said (again Abu Aardvark has a lot on this.)
I am not a fan of Tariq Ramadan. I do think he is more dangerous than some people say he is, but not in the way that is usually thought of. Ramadan poses absolutely no danger to the US or to the students of Notre Dame University — indeed, he would have been an asset, as he is an extremely intelligent and articulate Islamist thinker who can express his thoughts in other languages than Arabic with probably much greater ease than most Arab scholars. I also think that America is better than banning someone for what essentially is a “thought crime” — after all the man hasn’t done anything illegal or violent.
That being said, any real danger that Ramadan poses is with European Muslims. Taking France as an example, it is remarkable that the most prominent French Muslim institution, the Conseil du Culte Musulman, is dominated by Moroccans and Algerians but espouses a distinctly international form of Islamism akin to the thinking of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. That’s where Ramadan’s influence comes in. The fact is that Arab immigrants to Europe who are religious have practically no choice but to turn to mosques dominated by thinkers and preachers whose ideas are the highly abstracted, intellectual kind of the Muslim Brotherhood rather than Islam as practiced by their parents and grandparents. This article [French] in the Moroccan weekly Le Journal has the details.
This does not mean that I link Ramadan with the violent, extremist trend in European Islam, but simply that he represents a kind of Muslim Brotherhood-type thinking that I absolutely reject. Furthermore, as a Moroccan I think it’s a shame that religious Moroccan immigrants don’t retain the “popular” Moroccan Islam (with its strong animist and Sufi influences) rather than adopt these ideas. But of course, that is their choice — although it is limited by the dominance of a Ramadan-like discourse among European Muslim thinkers.
There are a lot of interesting comments below the Agonist article which take issue with some of these issues and others, it’s worth reading them — but it’s a shame the author of the article chose to rely on the above sources. My own feeling in the “Is Tariq Ramadan a reformist or a fundamentalist?” debate is that he is both, and many people don’t seem to get that this is not a contradiction.
P.S. I’ve just received an advanced review copy of a French book on Ramadan, called Tarek Raman devoilé (Tariq Ramadan Unveiled) which claims to be a five-year investigation into the man. From the blurb I suspect it’s mostly negative, and I’ll post a small review once I’ve had the chance to read it.
Categories: Arab diaspora, Political Islam.
It’s interesting how Islamic teaching is stuck between a rock and a hard place - in one sense, there is a centralised authority (namely Al Azhar and the Saudi authority), which issue fatwas and decide how money is spent. They are religiously strict in most cases, and therefore the faith they preach is not really ‘applicable’ - rather, it is the best-of scenario pretty much as the Vatican preaches what is seldom practiced. Then, you have a decentralised collection of self-propheced ’sheikhs’ and religions scholars - people who have spent years literally ‘hanging around’ mosques, calling for prayer, reciting Quran and reading fiqh, and now think they have the religious knowledge to preach, issuing their own mini-fatwas (then tend to end on ‘Allaho a3lam’ i.e God only knows, to absolve themselves of responsibility, but the people they say this do not bear this in mind). People turn to them because there is no other ‘alternative’ - high illteracy rates means access to proper literature is difficult, and there was such a strong stigma against religious schools during the 80s that today, they are practically non-existent. The popularity of ‘IslamLine’ - an 0900 number you can call if you have an Islamic question - points to a huge demand for answers.
With Christianity, you have a centralised hub of control throughout the entire evangelical process (pretty much), so in effect, the Church is much better suited to control the subject matter being discussed in sermons - you can’t ‘preordain’ yourself. This is both good and bad, but in the case of keeping the teachings of a faith within their original scope, this can only be good. Obviously, in Egypt at least, registered sheikhs have to be approved by Al Azhar, but the bulk of ‘alley-way sheikhs’ aren’t. Take the case of Amr Khaled for example - a dentist by profession who now decides he wishes to preach to rich Cairenes. Mosques are normally empty outside prayer hours, and a bearded fellow with enough conviction can find easily impressionable youth flocking to him for advise on everything from holding hands with girls to how to treat your infidel father if he hangs around long enough.
My own feeling in the “Is Tariq Ramadan a reformist or a fundamentalist?” debate is that he is both, and many people don’t seem to get that this is not a contradiction.
It sometimes seems to me that the ikhwan itself is a reformist organization. A while ago, I mentioned an article by Professor Abdullah Saeed dividing political Islam into traditionalist, revivalist and modernist camps. Saeed argues that the revivalists, which include the ikhwan, hold scripture paramount while claiming the right to reinterpret it, and thus tend to play an oppositional role in both theology and politics. I’m not a fan of the ikhwan either, but once the possibility of reinterpretation is acknowledged, reform becomes an integral part of theology, especially if it is asserted in opposition to established religious authorities.
Has anyone read Ramadan’s book? I was thinking of picking up a copy to see what he has to say.
Issandr El Amrani,
I appreciate and welcome your comments regarding Tariq Ramadan: Moderate or Radical?. I surely take no offense or umbrage with your assessment or opinions about it. Quite the opposite. Any flaws in my work that inspire you or others to comment I take as a gift of learning.
As my chosen title suggests, there are questions about Prof. Ramadan’s motives and so too, his legitimacy as an influential moderate Muslim. My presentation of the matter does not pretend to be seminal or conclusive. Rather, it was my intention to outline the debate and if fortunate, be a catalyst for further discussion. It can be argued which enjoyed the more success.
My ‘reliance’ on Lee Smith pertains only to the points mentioned, and not meant as a defense of his entire body of work on the subject.
Daniel Pipes is influential, agree or disagree, like it, or not. My outright dismal of his assertions, as he made them, illustrates the vehemence if not outright derision leveled Ramadan for his views. While I did not offer that Pipes is ‘pro-Likudnik’, the inference to his bias was clear, or so I thought. As you suggest, perhaps it fell short of the strong feelings in some.
Stephen Schwartz is all that you assert and more. The implications of what Schwartz wrote are part of the debate. The article is not about Qaradawi per se, as it is not about Schwartz’ opinion on Saudi Wahhabism or his claim they cultivate mythological moderates as he does in his book, “The Two Faces of Islam.”
They are all, however, ‘westerners’. If the larger debate concerning moderate Islam is contained only to those that speak Arabic as Abu Aardvark implies, what I see as a necessary inter-faith dialog among moderates will surely suffer.
I agree with your feeling: “the ‘Is Tariq Ramadan a reformist or a fundamentalist?’ debate is that he is both, and many people don’t seem to get that this is not a contradiction.” Although an imprecise statement of the premise, the truth of it lies in the fact that Ramadan has expressed the call for ijtihad.
The book, Tarek Raman devoilé, itself a five year investigation, suggests there is much more to the Ramadan debate then can be expressed in a 2000 word article. This does not relieve me of the responsibilty to more complete and clear in my presentation. My personal opinion is that Ramadan should indeed be allowed his posts at Notre Dame. It is through persuing discussion, knowledge, and understanding that solutions and comity will be found.
I eagerly expect reading more from you, and at this worthwhile site. It’s clear to me that I can only be enriched for having done so.
Worldwise
Dear Worldwise,
thanks for your feedback. Your article was an interesting starting point for a debate on Ramadan, and I realize it was more a review of articles about Ramadan more than in-depth account of his thought and work. I also think that we agree in that the Ramadan the phenomenon is much more important than the Notre Dame affair, which was the first time he came to the attention of most North Americans.
je veux un document qui parle sur l’islam en francais SVP
This nice is very good, i will recomend it to my friends and partners
I have always listened and read very carefully comments and articles by Mr Ramadan. I personally believe him to be very outspoken and completely honest.