The Controversy Over Tariq Ramadan

America's relationship with the Islamic world continues to be defined by hostile confrontation: the so-called war on terror, the bloody conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the political crisis in Pakistan, and the continuing stand-off with a theocratic Iran over its nuclear program. Managing these challenges has dominated the Bush presidency, and the same tasks will preoccupy whoever takes over in January 2009.

The next president, however, will also need to broaden the political discourse, redefining America's interaction with the Islamic world so that is not only about combating violence and extremism. With America's standing in the Middle East at historic lows, Muslim communities in Europe largely estranged from the majority populations around them, and Islamist movements on the march in the Middle East and beyond, building bridges of dialogue and understanding will be increasingly important.

The difficulties involved in building such bridges have been encapsulated in the controversy over Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss-born Muslim intellectual currently based in the Britain. A devout Muslim who insists that traditional Islam can coexist in mutual respect with the liberal societies of the West, Ramadan has become an obsession of the U.S. and European media. Indeed, The New Republic last June devoted more than 28,000 words - a substantial portion of the magazine - to probing his background and writings.

But despite all the attention, opinions diverge widely as to whether Ramadan should be revered or reviled. Some commentators praise him as Islam's Martin Luther, an intellectual activist who will help oversee an Islamic Reformation - and hence a perfect interlocutor for the West. Others assert that he only masquerades as a moderate reformer, and is in reality a dangerous absolutist who brooks no compromise between Sharia and modernity.

Ramadan certainly holds opinions that run contrary to mainstream Western views on many issues -- including gender equality, the role of religion in society and the benefits of global capitalism. But the inordinate amount of attention he attracts is less a product of his admittedly distasteful views than our own paranoia about the perceived threat that traditional Islam poses to our liberal and pluralist societies.

Ramadan purports to be intent on diminishing mistrust between the Islamic world and the West, including between Muslims living in the West and the non-Muslim majorities alongside them. He is certainly not the secularizing renegade that many Americans and Europeans would prefer as an intermediary. But precisely because he is seeking to build bridges between traditional Islam and modern Western society, he does represent the kind of intellectual capable of broadening understanding on both sides of the communal divide. He should be engaged with caution, not treated as a dangerous pariah.

Ramadan's recent employment history is a good indicator of the controversy he provokes. He is now a fellow at St. Antony's College in Oxford. But while one of Europe's finest universities finds him fit for an appointment, the United States does not even deem him worthy of entry. Notre Dame University offered him a professorship, to begin in 2004. Ramadan intended to take up the post, but was ultimately refused a visa by the U.S. State Department on the grounds that he had made financial contributions to two European charities that had provided funds to Hamas.

What makes Ramadan so hard to pin down is that he is simultaneously at home in seemingly incompatible worlds. He is urbane, erudite and multi-lingual. He supports "universal values," and argues that Muslims living in the West should participate fully in the political and civic societies of which they are a part. Ramadan condemns terrorist violence in favor of dialogue and peaceful resistance.

But Ramadan is also the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He believes in the upholding of traditional - his critics would say reactionary - Islamic attitudes toward the role of women, going so far as to side-step the question of whether female adulterers should be stoned. Ramadan disavows any hint of anti-Semitism, but is a vociferous critic of Israel's "unjust and wretched policies which continue to kill an entire people in an occupied territory." He rails against the economic inequalities and materialism that he attributes to the spread of capitalism.

To be sure, some of Ramadan's ideas are offensive to the West's liberal traditions. But so are those of devout practitioners of other religious creeds. In the end, Ramadan seeks a synthesis that enables his community to preserve its beliefs and traditions while coexisting peacefully with and within the Western world - precisely why he needs to be engaged, not shunned.

All the attention devoted to Ramadan has done at least as much to exaggerate his influence as to elucidate his views. In addition, his notoriety masks the reality that a Reformation within the Islamic world -- like its counterpart in Christianity -- will evolve more from deeper social transformations than from the role of individual leaders.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli certainly played important roles in the onset of pluralism within Christian Europe. But at least as important in bringing pluralism to Christianity and eventually separating church and state were the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution and the Industrial Revolution. The social upheavals they spawned hastened the spread of rationalism, the rise of middle classes, the establishment of public education systems, and other developments that shaped modern Christianity and prompted the secularization of political power.

Western intellectuals would be better served figuring out how to expose Islam to similar developments, and less time spilling ink over one public figure who, however controversial, may well be able to modestly advance Islam's dialogue with the West.

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

We do NOT need another religious hack like Dr. Ramadan. We've got plenty of our own religious hacks, thank you.
The less religion the better the world is going to be.
We need more rigorous academically minded people in USA.
Just as it happened when great scientists and artists like Einstein, Thomas Mann, Schoenberg and Stravinsky who escaped Hitler and dramatically transformed America.

[MagisterLudi]

In England the Islamicist constituency is very strong. There, Ramadan's views can appear almost liberal compare to some of the supremacist Islamic ideas preached in many England's mosques.
Essentially Ramadan's views are simple. The West must reform its laws on European hard-won freedoms to accommodate Islamic religious laws.
Ironically, Ramadan rarely speaks or admonishes on the need of Islamic world to modify its policies to accommodate European liberalism and freedoms within its borders. Of course not.

Luckily, in USA the apologists of Islamic intolerant and anti-feminine repression have had little cultural influence.
In USA citizens who express Anti-Islamicist views are not in danger of being assaulted or killed like it's all too common in England and Holland.

And we in USA would like to keep it that way!

[MagisterLudi]

"America's relationship with the Islamic world continues to be defined by hostile confrontation:"

If if taken out of global context this perhaps will be true. But this ignores several important facts.
1.US right now has cordial relationships with many Islamic nations: Egypt, Jordan, Saud, Kuwait etc.
2.Islamic insurgency and terrorism right now a global phenomenon. It absolutely cannot be taken out of global context. From Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Lebanon; Africa; Russia, England, Spain: Philippines, Australia and Bali and MANY other countries are dealing with terrorist Islamic insurgencies.

[tbone99]

"What makes Ramadan so hard to pin down is that he is simultaneously at home in seemingly incompatible worlds. He is urbane, erudite and multi-lingual...he condemns terrorist violence in favor of dialogue and peaceful resistance."

You could probably say that about ANY of the mid-eastern monarchies and ruling class members.They and their families fit well into the western world in travels abroad and in the privacy of their own class.They drink, they disco, they whore about.But when it comes to holding their grip on their subjects they rely on an archaic Islam to hold them in subjugation .....

Likewise the present regime here - cheney 's gay dgtr and Bush's twins weren't exactly living evangelical lifestyles but hewing to that ideology verbally and financially got them elected.

So Ramadan is only daring in that he's SAYING these things , tho' from a safe distance.Being the descendant of the Islamic Broterhoods founder probably ensures him some protection as well.

[Boobaloo]

I dont see anything controversial about him, he seems like a human being with conflicting ideas that compete to coexist with his religious beliefs in a modern reality.

And being someones grandson ... holy crap ... what does that have anything to do with anything? sins of the father? Beyond ridculous.

=== And as far as Ramadans stand on Israel, what the hell is so controversial about that? It's controversial to me that YOU find his statement somehow unacceptable:

"Ramadan disavows any hint of anti-Semitism, but is a vociferous critic of Israel's "unjust and wretched policies which continue to kill an entire people in an occupied territory."

===Israel is unjust and does conduct WRETCHED war crimes against unarmed civilians and is conducting a genocide of the Palestinian people.

What the hell is anti-semtic about that? And Ramadan would be a semite so that is an incorrect label.

Kupchan ... your article is entirely what is wrong with our foreign policy. By supporting Israel we are supporting a Nazi type Apartheid nation and then weeping and throwing hissey fits when the world dares challege Israel behavior.

[CorkExaminer]

Please don't repeat the ambivalence over stoning women smear. Ramadan is trying to end the practice as quickly as possible within existing political realities: see his pacifying of John Humphries in a robust discussion on BBC Radio 4:

http://tinyurl.com/2mbkz3

If this basic point is wrong it will account for much of the above ambivalence. See also the recent comment on his web site about the injustices of the way the law is being applied in Islamic majority countries:

http://tinyurl.com/39c3gq

[pakiman]

I've read many of Mr. Ramadan's books, and i've never found anything that would disagree with humanist values. Can you show me where He "side-steps" the stoning of adulterers? It just doesn't seem to fit in with all his other positions. He is the grandson of the late Sayyed Qutb, but it totally different form him in terms of his approach to Islam. He is banned from the Majority of Arab Muslim Countries because he is seen as a maverick who is trying to uproot traditional values and views on Islam. I'd appreciate a reference that would show what views he allegedly espouses the "disgusted" you.

[Mag]

There is no reason to be so terrified of this guy. Grow-up, America - confront your fears.

As a free Muslim woman of the West (yeah, we exist, people), I don't care for Ramadan's views, at all. In fact, I totally resent what I consider to be his very insidious demagogy and manipulation of Islam.

It would be good to be able to challenge him to his face, in a formal forum, in this country where I can speak my mind without fear of social retaliation.

Let him in, we can handle him.

[mamacat]

From my point of view:
the important thing to consider in regards to an attitude toward Mr. Ramadan is, what are his actions, and what is he advocating?
Is he violent, and does he advocate violence? Or is he vocal, and advocate the use of dialogue?
That he disagrees with Christian, Jewish, or anyone else's doctrines is secondary to the methods he uses and advocates for interrelationships.
I suspect it is easier to have discourse today with a Muslim than it is to have discourse with a right-wing Republican. Most Muslims, I suspect, do not expect people in the West to agree with them. Most neo-cons refuse to be rational in discourse with anyone, Muslim or otherwise.
The world today is more threatened by radical Republicanism than it is by moderate Islam.
Since the U.S. government is controlled as much as they illegally can by neo-cons, it is not surprising that moderate, vocal Muslims would be denied Visas, unless they are able and willing to donate millions of dollars to Bush, Cheney, or Rudy.

[mommadona]

There will be no understanding of Islam by a Western Woman if that religion demands that a woman is a piece of chattel owned by a man to use and abuse as he wishes.

And don't start with the "Oh, but the KORAN says...." because that is the same excuse used by our own fanatics to control their women.

Islam is a male religion.
Islam is male egocentric.
Islam is not compatible with Western values.

If women insist on following this path, they reap what they sow.

What sane woman sends their flesh and blood to kill in the name of a god or prophet in the 21st Century.

One brain-washed woman controlled my a male-dominated religion and subsequent society.

[AfzaalKhan]

question we should ask is what are universal values? Thous shalt not kill, steal coveat thy neighbor wife etc etc are universal values. Who among us would say yeah cold blood killing is good, no religion, society or culture will celebrate cold blood killing. The universal values are the innate good that every man carries irregardless of race, creed or religion.
Yet homosexual behavior is not universal value, or stonning to death for adultry is not universal value, and there in lies the debate, where one section goes calling the other barbaric and the other touting infidels tryin to corrupt thier religion and defile their purity.
As long as we understands western or islamic or eastern values are different then universal values we can come to an understanding. Different but equal, is the only basis of dialogue, decrying that mine are universal values or decrying defiling of religion will only pull us apart and will lead to clash of civilization. If history is any indicator who ever win that clash will not enjoy the fruit for long time.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I don't give OUR churchies any money, I won't
give him any money, either...they should
regulate it. 'Congress shall pass no law',
well, ok, whatever, but I've met more than
one person of more than one denomination
that thinks that their special religious
belief entitles them to walk around with
this attitude...basically, for my dollar,
they ALL suck. I think there should be
a discussion of religion in the workplace,
too. I don't think you should get your
Allah/Jesus/Jehovah license until you've
sat through some kind of testing and
approval process. Going forth to practice
politics by other means and collect money
in the name of____________(insert name
of Deity, here), should be closely
and critically looked at in the broad
daylight by all and sundry before having
MORE people try to run this racket. Racket?
Yes, racket, do your homework.

[lisakaz]

I hardly think Notre Dame would attempt to hire someone who was "slippery" and by some inference a radical. It seems to me Bu$hco is enthralled with the theory of this "clash of civilizations" and has made it a self-fulfilling prophecy by refusing to acknowledge or work with anyone can't be pegged into this binary narrative of us vs. them.

[Arsenal]

Ramadan goes "so far as to side-step the question of whether female adulterers should be stoned."

Ramadan "supports "universal values...."

What does he need to do to deserve being treated as the dangerous man that he is? What's the content of the putatively universal values to which he is committed? What grounds or inspires those values? Why did he evade the issue of capital punishment for female adulterers? Does his version of universal values preclude equal treatment of women in matters of sexual morality, politics, etc?

The 'syllogisms' implicit in your advocacy of engagement with Mr. Ramadan are incompatible and weak.

I'm against the current posture of our engagement/confrontation with Islam, but where an "urbane" and "erudite" scholar like Ramadan cannot condemn certain Stone Age practices, courting him amounts to an irrational embrace of dialogue for its own sake. Half a loaf is not always better than none.

[tyruler]

Thank you for this excellent piece. Tariq Ramadan is indeed a bridge builder but unfortunately many hostile forces from radical secularists in France (who banned the Muslim women headscarf worn out of religious modesty) to openly anti-Muslim bigots have accused this Oxford educated doctor and recent Notre Dame professor of "double speak."

That is a clever charge leveled by the many hostile critics of Mr. Ramadan to sow doubt about the man who has a knack of pissing off nearly everyone. From what I hear from this intellectual/philosopher is a regularly drumbeat of criticism directed both towards the shallow Western intellectuals, esp. French, who paint the brush too wide in their vitriol against anything they see as devout Islam, and his criticism directed towards his fellow co-religionists for being too reflexive and not reflective enough in helping Europeans understand Islam, to which till this day they remain woefully ignorant...

I like how Bush tries to preach democracy to Palestinians while denying it to them after they democratically elect the party he and his crony neocons hate (Hamas) and how "hearing opposing viewpoints" is a good thing for liberty. But if they truly want to hear opposing viewpoints then why did they ban Mr. Ramadan from expressing his and revoking his security-cleared visa?

Another shining example of this administration blatant hypocricy and blunder in their PR-fight to win "hearts and minds."