Hindustan Times
Tale of a Muslim Martin Luther
There is an Osama bin Laden who some Muslims love. And there is Tariq Ramadan, who many Muslims swear by. I am one of them.
Forty-five-year-old Tariq Ramadan, professor of Islamic studies at Oxford University, is part-intellectual, part-reformist, part-controversial, but a full-on fundamentalist. “A fundamentalist,” he asks, “is one who relies on the fundamentals of what he believes in. So what’s wrong?” And fundamentalism — whenever it has come to mean something untenable — is not an Islamic concept at all, he argues, but a Protestant one.
So, just who is Ramadan and why is he as much liked as hated? He is a Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin residing in Britain, and who the Time magazine has named as one among “the 100 most important innovators of the 21st century”. His grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, founded the fiercely anti-West Muslim Brotherhood, who many say sowed the seeds of the al-Qaeda. This, however, he denies.
Ramadan shot into limelight in 2003 after a fiery debate on national television with far-right French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy, now president. Sparks flew as Ramadan took on Sarkozy for calling Muslims in Paris neighbourhoods “scums”. Then, four years ago, the US refused to let him take up a teaching position at the University of Notre Dame.
For his ardent admirers, Ramadan is a “Muslim Martin Luther” with a rockstar’s popularity and a diplomat’s tact. With stirring speeches, he is out to reconcile Islam with a hostile world. To his critics, depending on who they are, he could be a “dangerous guy” on a “covert mission”, “Janus-faced and doublespeaking”, an “anti-Semite”, and — for hardcore Islamists — a reformer trying to dilute Salafist Islam.
Whenever he speaks, young, educated Muslims file in as if it were another call to prayer and play his speeches on CDs that are widely marketed. On a muggy evening, a crowded New Delhi audience had just heard one, in rapt attention, when he spoke on “Islam, the Quran and Western Muslims” during the “Dialogues of Faith Series” at the India International Centre. As soon as he finishes his lecture, a mob homes in on him, eager to introduce themselves, speak to him and take down his contact details.
It’s an assorted group: students from Jamia Millia Islamia, a UN official, a JNU professor, a French journalist and a few others. He hesitatingly hands out his business cards, asking: “…but what will you do with it?” There is a distinct aura and, clearly, he has fans among people he has never interacted with before.
“We as Muslims are struggling to preserve our identity,” he tells me. As always, he sports a neatly clipped beard and, in a black jacket and loose blue shirt, he looks like a scholar with a very functional dress code.
Western critics have often accused Ramadan for having a “forked tongue”. The controversial Muslim scholar says he comes from the reformist tradition of Islam but at the same time, had asked “all people of conscience” to boycott Italy’s largest book at Turin for honouring the state of Israel on its 60th statehood anniversary earlier this year.
Ramadan says it is the understanding of the Islamic texts — and the context — that needs reform. Moreover, Muslims should create a creative presence wherever they are.
In a globalised world and across societies, people have become more concerned about identities and that is where, he feels, the Islam-versus-Rest conflict partly begins. There is the Old Muslim Presence, he says, and the New Muslim Presence and many feel threatened of the latter. “We are coming up with problems which we never had. In India, where I have come after a gap of 10 years, I feel Muslims are much more vunerable now and palpable. One can feel their sense of insecurity.” This is because of the narrow understanding of Hinduism and Islam that some politicians have in this country, he says.
For European Muslims, Ramadan is an inspiring figure because he is fighting for mainstreaming of Muslims. He says the integration (of immigrant Muslims) is long over. “What integration?” he asks, adding: “What we are dealing with are post-integration issues. And do not forget, we all have to get out of the minority mentality.” He feels when Muslim rioters ran amok in the suburbs of Paris, they displayed French characteristics, proof that they were only acting their nationality. “What do the French do when they are unhappy? They protest like these Muslims did.”
Despite his anti-US stance, Ramadan is one ‘opportunity’ the West doesn’t want to let go of because he is strongly opposed to things like “Islamic order” and “terrorism”. “Killing of innocents is anti-Islamic. How many times have we told you that?” The clearest view of his ideals comes from a paragraph deeply buried in one of his most famous books, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (2004). “The aim, he writes, “is to protect the Muslim identity and religious practice, to recognize the Western constitutional structure, to become involved as a citizen at the social level and to live with true loyalty to the country to which one belongs.”
And, by the way, he feels the term “Islamic terrorism” and questions like “are you Muslim first or an Indian” are an oxymoron. And only morons ask them.
(This annotated profile of Tariq Ramadan recollects from an earlier converstaion with the author during his 2007 India visit, which was covered in the print edition of the HT that year.)
(4 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...
(4.47 out of 5)
Sam Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Well it is a legitimate and meaningful question, as long as there are muslims who think loyaltly to islam in more important than loyaltly to India.
After all India is not Darul Islam..
So by islamic requirements, they can keep on waging war against India.
Read Chachnama, babar’s chronicles, where they justified looting India, attacking and killing millions and taking huge number of captive hindus as slaves (to be sold in Baghdad, central asia)…
They justified all that, because it is not islamic land, and they can do all that in the name of Muslim god Allah..
Anybody who says the other way are disconnected from reality and history.
Either they have ulterior motive, or ignorant of what true islam is …(or atleast what the thugs/looters claims islam is)…
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Also as per islam, muslims should always support fellow muslims.
So if and when Pakistan attacks, religious muslims can claim that they can support Pakistanis.
If questioned, they can claim that as per islam they should be able to do it.
If not allowed, they can claim that they cannot freely practice their religion.
If they cannot fully and freely practice, then India can be declared as Darul Harb.
Once it is declared Darul Harb, they have religious sanction to loot and kill and capture Hindus or other Kafir’s as slaves…
Remember, Mohd has captured people from the wars and kept them as slaves and even sold them.
So true muslims, want to fully and completely mimic him.
Do not think that Islam has moved past slavery.
It was legal until 1963 in Saudi Arabia and slaves were sold freely in Mecca/Medinah in 1920’s, 1930’s.
[Reply]
kashif Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
few things sam:
“After all India is not Darul Islam..
So by islamic requirements, they can keep on waging war against India.
Read Chachnama, babar’s chronicles, where they justified looting India, attacking and killing millions and taking huge number of captive hindus as slaves (to be sold in Baghdad, central asia)…
They justified all that, because it is not islamic land, and they can do all that in the name of Muslim god Allah..”
How can we say India was ever Darul Islam? if Darul Islam means where Muslims are in a majority, then India was never Darul Islam.
If Darul Islam means having Muslim rulers then a large number of Muslims lived under non-Muslims rulers in Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Assam and many other places but never revolted just because the ruler was not Muslim.
If Darul Islam means having shariah law implemented then again large numbers of Muslims remained outside the shariah law in India. In fact, even during the freedom struggle there was no demand for shariah law. So again, India was never Darul Islam and Muslim did not do “jihad” to make it so.
in fact, as you rightly mentioned the word “justify”, Islam was used as an excuse to justify looting and plundering of India. British did the same and if you read the statements of East India company they use language of the missionaries to justify their presence in India.
The difference between British and Muslims were that Muslim invaders made India their home and settled here making it their own country.
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
You have circular logic, without answering my simple question.
All looters and plunderers can be asked to leave, just like british were asked to leave.
It is simple and no muslim or so called secular people answer these.
Once muslims are in majority, they are going to make everyone’s else life a living hell..
Just watch pakistan..
1. Jiziya on Sikhs/Hindus
2. Apostasy
3. Non-muslim’s evidence not admitted against muslim.
4. religious apartheid.
…
..
Sam Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
You got my point.
India is not Darul Islam.
So by islamic beliefs, muslims should wage a jihad against everyone else, until Hindus/Sikhs pay Jiziya or convert.
As long as those verses are there in Koran, and people follow koran it is going to be a legitimate question to ask “Are you a muslim first or indian”..
People are not dumb in asking this.
If some muslims identify as indians primarily, it could mean that they would consider Hindus as their friends (Koran prohibits making friends with non-muslims.)
Sam Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Interesting comment by someone on a different blog..
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/156999
Sam Reply:
June 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
SKS,
If I ask secular Muslims and others to condemn Jiziya and other blatantly discriminatory laws, I am called hate mongerer and there are calls to banish me from this blog..
Still no one answered these
1. Why is non-muslims evidence is not admitted against a Muslim in Pakistan ?
2. Why are born muslims denied the freedom to leave islam ?
3. Why is 1muslim man = 33 Hindu woman for blood money in Saudi arabia ?
4. Why should a muslim woman produce 4 muslim man as witness for her rape ?
if she is not able to get that proof she is inturn accused for unlawful sex…
many many more
they are genuine human rights violations and basically religious apartheid.
I raise these questions…NO ANSWERS,,,basically total silence…
instead some obscure writers are glorified, and that too without proving anything significant they have done…
looks like either these are non issues for them,
or they are in total denial (sometimes I think ostrich could be better, as opposed to some humans)…
Sam Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Blasphemy laws in pakistan..
This is what a High court judge said regarding Blashphemy against islam
“Judge of the Lahore High Court Mr. Justice Nazir Akhtar became highly partial on the issue of blasphemy laws. He declared that anybody blamed with blasphemy charges, should be instantly killed on the spot by Muslims as a religious obligation. He further remarked that there was no need of any legal proceedings for a blasphemer. These remarks of the judge were published in the national print media. ”
http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/blasphemy.htm
Ashish Reply:
June 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
@Bobby;
Go on. You rock! As always.
SKS Mumbai Reply:
June 18th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Dear Ashish
Congratulations, our wishes have come true.
“Stupid”, “even by your low standards” and “biased” . Although below our high expectations.
I had asked Zia sometime back, is there no way to counter an argument without assigning adjectives to those who are propagating those arguments?
Well the answer then and now is still the same. Detailed studies like SACHAR Committee report: Hmm … I was actually quoting from “Physics by Resnick and Halliday” when I discussed Success rate in civil services and other exams.
Coming back to the adjectives, I really love this quote (of course it is used in a similar but international context): “Modern definition of a RACIST is one who is winning his Argument with the LIBERALS”
SKS Mumbai Reply:
June 18th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Any explanations? Why was my comment referring to the website of Ox-ford univ. deemed unacceptable?
Ashish Reply:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:06 am
@SKS, hush. Bobby is comic relief; he cheers me up, really.
@Zia, I visit blogs to widen my horizons. Sincerely. So far, I have never seen such language being used to run down those that happen to have contrary views.
I have a learning objective and my positives from visiting this blog have been to understand where you come from and your ideological pillar, if I may call Tariq Ramadan that. I had never heard of Ramadan before I read your blog and in the last 7 days, I have listened to countless speeches/ debates of Ramadan on Youtube (in the same spirit I read Das Kapial when much younger!), to understand, understand and hope. I just happen to differ- not with what he says, but with the basic premise of going to theology for solutions to modern world problems. It’s a point of view; it’s my point of view. I am much less patient than you are with the pace of reforms. I continue to be sceptical about the Muslim leadership’s (religious and political) desire and ability to drive reforms in most parts of the world. It’s my point of view. How’s that bad?
I honestly believe that if Muslims faced so much discrimination in India, their numbers would have dwindled/ both in absolute numbers as well as in proportion to the total population. Does this make me a … whatever?
Briefly, I have seen two ways of countering arguments from your side:
1. Oh, Hindus are also violent; your scriptures are full of violence. Dalits are discriminated. If Muslims have LeT, SIMI and so on, Hindus have Bajrang Dal and RSS. We have polygamy, so do Hindus. Is this a mature counter? I thought the blog is meant to focus on the Muslims/ Islam and so on in and Indian context. The amount of Hindu bashing that goes on is amazing.
Matter of fact, this last one on polygamy is the identical position taken by Dr Zakir Naik on his website. If I wanted to really twist the knife, I could have made a big fuss on this. But, heck. I play fair. It’s only cricket you see!
2. “That’s the wrong question/ wrong approach/ too stupid/ moronic” or, “your type of people” always ask these.
When you let passion overtake reason, debating is useless. Not all of us have an agenda. My suggestion to you to offer a certain line of argument to Sam, was well meant. Ramadan, from whatever I have read and listened, pretty much advocates the same (say these verses were from an era and in a certain context ; we do not follow them in practice anymore.. source, Youtube: Ramadan vs Hirsi Ali) Ramadan actually goes on to say that he can’t speak for abolition (forget the exact word used) because then Muslims will not like it and see him as a Western stooge. For making the well-meaning suggestion, what did I get? A mouthful of dismissive invectives with the “your type” comment and “slam-dunk”.
If you are so intolerant of dissent, write a book. Why blog?
As for the “moron” comment, irrespective of whether the comment was made by Ramadan and you only quoted, the fact that it came in the closing sentence of your adulatory post of Ramadan, leaves me to conclude that you are in agreement.
Ashish Reply:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:47 am
@SKS, and this is way off topic..
Resnick Halliday… man, you got me nostalgic. Piskunoff? Feynman? Yes? Bhaiyyaaaaa!!
tranjeet Reply:
June 18th, 2009 at 8:22 am
http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/17/untouchables-in-india/
H Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Hey Sam….
1. Why is non-muslims evidence is not admitted against a Muslim in Pakistan ?
A: Why are you raising it in India? Better ask the constitution makers of Pakistan, their president, prime minister why its the case there.
2. Why are born muslims denied the freedom to leave islam ?
A: Prove that..it is very easy to pop a question. So tell me where it is written.
3. Why is 1muslim man = 33 Hindu woman for blood money in Saudi arabia ?
A: Is that applicable in India?… No.. na.. then why you bother so much. Second what is your source for this information…please tell.
4. Why should a muslim woman produce 4 muslim man as witness for her rape ?
if she is not able to get that proof she is inturn accused for unlawful sex…
A:–Again what is the source of your information. Bring it out baby before we can start a real debate on your misconceptions.