Kashkul

This Blog contains articles of interest to me.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Tariq Ramadan on crises in France

Tariq Ramadan on the crisis in France
Europe's leading Muslim intellectual on the futility of violence, the need
for Islamic feminism, and the social apartheid behind the uprising.

By Erich Follath and Romain Leick

Nov. 16, 2005 | Tariq Ramadan is considered by many to be a leading
philosopher and scholar of Islam. In 2000, Time magazine selected him as
one of the most important personalities of the new century. But he's also a
figure of controversy, especially in the post-9/11 era. "The reformer to
his admirers, Tariq Ramadan is Europe's leading advocate of liberal Islam,"
the Boston Globe wrote of the 43- year-old intellectual, who was born in
Geneva and holds Swiss citizenship. "To his detractors, he's a dangerous
theocrat in disguise."

The Department of Homeland Security considers Ramadan to be a radical, and
when Notre Dame University in Indiana offered to hire him as a professor of
religion and conflict studies, the Bush administration refused to provide
Ramadan with a visa to enter the country.

In contrast, Britain's government recently asked Ramadan to join a panel of
experts to advise the government on how to deal with radical Islamists.
Currently, he is a guest lecturer at St. Anthony's College in Oxford.

Ramadan comes from a family well familiar with political philosophy,
activism and conflict: His grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, became a
co-founder of Egypt's Society of Muslim Brothers in 1928, and was
assassinated in 1949 for his religious agitation. In a recent interview,
Ramadan talked about the rioting that has rocked the French suburbs, the
deep-rooted problems with the integration of Muslims in Europe, and the
need for modernization of Islam.

You are one of the most influential and one of the most controversial
Muslim intellectuals in Europe. Where were you when the French riots broke
out?

My Paris office is in one of those banlieues, Saint-Denis, one of the focal
points of the unrest. But I must admit that I had no inclination whatsoever
to expose myself to rocks and burning projectiles on the street at night.

That sounds a bit indifferent. Many Muslims pay attention to what you say
-- they listen to your taped lectures and read your writings. Don't you
feel compelled to make an attempt to convince these youths to turn away
from violence?

Listen, my position is perfectly clear. There is no doubt that violence is
not a solution and that the destruction of buses and cars must end. These
crimes must be punished. There is also no doubt that a certain number of
youths are descending into pure vandalism and uncontrolled anarchy.
Naturally, reestablishing order is of critical importance, especially for
the residents of the suburbs, who are bearing the brunt of the violence.

So you truly have no sympathy for the rioters?

Of course I do. But feeling sympathy and searching for explanations isn't
the same as believing that the violence is justified. I am firmly convinced
that the government's efforts to suppress the riots are inadequate, and
that they will remain ineffective until we understand the message behind
this outbreak.

And how do you interpret this message?

This revolt has nothing to do with Islam. Islam, as a religion, has been
established in France for a long time, and the religious question has been
resolved in this country. Islam does not threaten France's future in any
way. But it is the social question that poses a true danger to the unity of
the republic. Politicians across the political spectrum have underestimated
this reality. They stick their heads in the sand and mislead their
constituents by attempting to denounce Islam as the source of the problem.

No one disputes the magnitude of social rifts in French society. But it
just so happens that these divides run along ethnic and religious lines.
Hasn't Islam promoted or even encouraged the formation of social ghettos,
the isolation of ethnic communities?

The concepts of unity and equality, which are idealized to the point of
excess in France's political rhetoric, are nothing but myths and blatant
lies at the social level. The main purpose of the public debates over
Islam, integration and immigration is to stir up fear. In a sense,
politicians use these debates as ideological strategies, as a way to avoid
confronting reality.

What are they attempting to distract from?

The truth is that certain French citizens are treated as second-class
citizens, if not the leprous members of the national community. Their
children are sent to ghetto schools and taught by inexperienced teachers,
they are crammed into inhumane public housing developments, and they are
confronted with an essentially closed job market. In short, they live in a
bleak, devastated universe. France is disintegrating before our eyes into
socioeconomic communities, into territorial and social apartheid. The rich
live in their own ghettos. Institutionalized racism is a daily reality.

Isn't Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy aware of this when he calls for
targeted assistance for the poor, for dialogue with the Muslims and for
relaxing France's rigorous secularism?

Sarkozy is acutely aware of the potential for votes in the suburbs. In
crises such as the current one, he shows his true face: contempt and
rudeness. If he views entire sections of the population as "riffraff," he
shouldn't be surprised if that's the way they end up behaving. He is giving
the police free rein in a climate characterized by lack of respect. He is
fixated on the 2007 presidential election instead of developing a workable
political structure for 2020. Changes will only take place in this country
when the residents of the suburbs are treated as fully entitled Frenchmen,
as part of the solution, not an expression of the problem.

That's all very well and good -- but doesn't self-criticism have a place
alongside criticism? Are Muslim immigrants truly interested in integration,
or do they prefer segregation?

The attempt to Islamicize social issues perverts and falsifies political
discourse. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe value the fact
that they live in democratic, constitutional states, states that guarantee
them freedom of conscience and religion. But mutual trust is often
shattered, and the result is that fear and racism are deeply affecting
France, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Germany. By the time they have
reached the second, third or fourth generation, the descendants of
immigrants should no longer be stigmatized as ghetto children, as "scum"
who are "out of control."

Nevertheless, what makes the integration of Muslims so difficult, compared
with earlier immigrants from Poland, Italy, Spain and Portugal?

Two things, I believe. First, this immigration no longer occurs in
individual waves; instead, it is a large-scale and continuous immigration.
That's the problem of quantity. And then there is the issue of quality. For
Muslim immigrants, religion is inseparable from their roots and identity.
They feel that transforming themselves from Moroccans or Algerians into
Frenchmen makes them bad Muslims. This makes integration more difficult
because it apparently forces Muslims to choose between two alternatives:
self-abandonment or self-isolation.

But hasn't Islam remained a foreign religion in the Western world, a
religion that has yet to enter the modern age?

There are traditionalists, adherents to a literal exegesis of the Koran. I
have spent the last 15 years campaigning for a genuinely European Islam,
one that requires evolution with respect to time and the environment, as
well as a separation of dogmatism and rationality. Islam cannot place
itself outside of history.

And where is the boundary between dogma and reason, between being faithful
to tradition and being receptive to the modern age?

The dogmatic and, therefore, invulnerable core in Islam is understandably
simple: acknowledgement of faith, prayer, charity and fasting. Almost
everything else is open to interpretation and modification in space and
time.

It does indeed sound clear and simple. Why don't we put it to the test with
an example: Is a Muslim permitted to break with his faith?

Not according to the majority opinion among Koran scholars. But the
prohibition on apostasy arose at a time when the first Muslim followers of
the prophet Mohammed were at war with neighboring tribes. At the time,
changing one's faith was tantamount to high treason or desertion. Nowadays
this context has changed completely.

In other words, the fight against "infidels" is completely outmoded?

Even the concept of the infidel is misleading, because the infidel is
normally someone with a different faith, someone who refuses to recognize
the truth of the words of the Koran, as revealed by God. He has every right
to do so, as long as he does not question my right to believe in my truth.

So each individual must become blessed in his own way? What about atheists?

The logic of freedom of religion implies freedom to be an atheist, even
though, from a historical perspective, this has not been accepted in the
Muslim world...

...and often leads to brutal punishment. How do you feel about equal rights
for men and women?

We need an Islamic feminism. Traditional Islam views the women merely as
mother, wife, daughter or sister. She has obligations and rights in this
capacity. But we must come to a point at which we treat the women as an
independent individual with a right to self-determination, as someone who
can run her own life without coercion.

Should she be permitted to decide for herself whether to stop wearing the
head scarf?

Of course, just as she is permitted to decide whether to wear the head
scarf.

But that's an illusion, at least in the real world. Women and girls are not
emancipated within their families.

You're right. This is often the case, but emancipation can only come from
within; it cannot be dictated by someone else. A law banning the wearing of
head scarves changes nothing, except perhaps external appearance.
Naturally, Islamic feminism must also include the right to education, to
work and the freedom to select one's own husband.

That's all fine and good, but can you explain, then, why you have publicly
called for a moratorium on the stoning of women accused of committing
adultery -- rather than condemning the practice outright? Some would argue
that's hypocritical.

Once again, Islam can only be modernized from within. If I stand there and
state that I condemn the practice of stoning, that this punishment is
despicable, it changes nothing. My fellow Muslims will say: Brother Tariq,
you became a European, a Swiss citizen, so you are no longer one of us. I
want to trigger a process of contemplation and thought within the Islamic
community. Critiques and attacks from the outside can produce tension.
Incidentally, a number of U.S. states have imposed a moratorium on the
death penalty, in an effort to buy time to think about the meaning and
legitimacy of this penalty.

Is a tendency toward violence inherent to Islam? Isn't it true that many
Muslims view jihad as an elementary part of Islamic identity?

Are the Crusades an elementary part of Christianity? No. Every community
has the right to self-defense. The Palestinians have the right to fight for
their independence from Israel. But this goal does not justify all means.
Nothing legitimizes the killing of innocent civilians. The suicide bomber
who blows up Israeli children cannot transform himself into a martyr. The
Palestinian problem is not an Islamic problem.

Where do you see the process of reform and modernization of Islam, of which
you have been a proponent? Has it made any progress anywhere?

In Europe. The impetus must come from European Islam and then influence the
Arab world. There is some overlap between the universal values of Western
democracy and those of Islam -- the constitutional state operating under
the rule of law, the equality of citizens, universal suffrage, the
changeover of power, separation of the private and public spheres. These
are basic principles, and although they are not spelled out in the Koran, I
do not believe that they contradict Islamic tradition.

That is an opinion that many Muslim legal scholars do not share.

An excessively literal interpretation of the Koran ever since the 13th
century has led Islam into intellectual calcification and political
tension. Remaining faithful to the texts must be distinguished from
interpretation of historical and social context. If we begin applying this
exegesis and hermeneutics, we will begin to see progress in Islam thought.

Your words are like those of a rationalist, an enlightened theologian with
purely intellectual ambitions. But in political reality, in France, Great
Britain and the United States, you are suspected of secretly promoting the
expansion of Islam and sympathizing with violence.

Oh yes, I am one of the most maligned Muslim intellectuals. Tariq Ramadan,
the slippery trickster. They talk about people like me the way they used to
talk about the Jews: He is Swiss and European, but his loyalties also lie
elsewhere. He says one thing and thinks something else. He is a member of
an international organization -- in the past, it was world Jewry, today
it's world Islam. I am disparaged as if I were a Muslim Jew.

Could that have something to do with your family history? Your grandfather,
Hassan al-Banna, was the founder of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in
1928, an organization that envisioned an Islamic fundamentalist
transformation.

Thoughts are not genetically inherited traits. I admire my grandfather for
his anti-colonial fight against the British. He was very involved in
education for girls and women. His five daughters -- my aunts and my mother
-- all attended university. And the organization he founded was very
progressive for its time. However, I am highly critical of the Brotherhood,
with its affected, conspiratorial behavior, its hierarchical structures and
its oversimplified slogans.

Were you ever a member of the Brotherhood?

I can assure you that I am no Muslim Brother, despite the fact that my
critics have repeatedly launched this rumor in an effort to slander and
harm me.

Do you ever think about forming your own party, organization or movement?

No. I am not a politician. I have often been approached in this regard in
the past 15 years, but I have always declined these sorts of offers. I view
myself as an independent, critical intellectual, as someone who tries to
stimulate thought on the left and the right, to encourage intellectual
evolution. The Islamic world is obsessed with the notion of strong leaders.
This is a mistake. We don't need powerful leaders, but rather
unconventional, progressive thinkers with the courage to open our minds.

Translated from German by Christopher Sultan.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

This article has been provided by Der Spiegel through a special arrangement
ariq Ramadan on the crisis in France
Europe's leading Muslim intellectual on the futility of violence, the need
for Islamic feminism, and the social apartheid behind the uprising.

By Erich Follath and Romain Leick

Nov. 16, 2005 | Tariq Ramadan is considered by many to be a leading
philosopher and scholar of Islam. In 2000, Time magazine selected him as
one of the most important personalities of the new century. But he's also a
figure of controversy, especially in the post-9/11 era. "The reformer to
his admirers, Tariq Ramadan is Europe's leading advocate of liberal Islam,"
the Boston Globe wrote of the 43- year-old intellectual, who was born in
Geneva and holds Swiss citizenship. "To his detractors, he's a dangerous
theocrat in disguise."

The Department of Homeland Security considers Ramadan to be a radical, and
when Notre Dame University in Indiana offered to hire him as a professor of
religion and conflict studies, the Bush administration refused to provide
Ramadan with a visa to enter the country.

In contrast, Britain's government recently asked Ramadan to join a panel of
experts to advise the government on how to deal with radical Islamists.
Currently, he is a guest lecturer at St. Anthony's College in Oxford.

Ramadan comes from a family well familiar with political philosophy,
activism and conflict: His grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, became a
co-founder of Egypt's Society of Muslim Brothers in 1928, and was
assassinated in 1949 for his religious agitation. In a recent interview,
Ramadan talked about the rioting that has rocked the French suburbs, the
deep-rooted problems with the integration of Muslims in Europe, and the
need for modernization of Islam.

You are one of the most influential and one of the most controversial
Muslim intellectuals in Europe. Where were you when the French riots broke
out?

My Paris office is in one of those banlieues, Saint-Denis, one of the focal
points of the unrest. But I must admit that I had no inclination whatsoever
to expose myself to rocks and burning projectiles on the street at night.

That sounds a bit indifferent. Many Muslims pay attention to what you say
-- they listen to your taped lectures and read your writings. Don't you
feel compelled to make an attempt to convince these youths to turn away
from violence?

Listen, my position is perfectly clear. There is no doubt that violence is
not a solution and that the destruction of buses and cars must end. These
crimes must be punished. There is also no doubt that a certain number of
youths are descending into pure vandalism and uncontrolled anarchy.
Naturally, reestablishing order is of critical importance, especially for
the residents of the suburbs, who are bearing the brunt of the violence.

So you truly have no sympathy for the rioters?

Of course I do. But feeling sympathy and searching for explanations isn't
the same as believing that the violence is justified. I am firmly convinced
that the government's efforts to suppress the riots are inadequate, and
that they will remain ineffective until we understand the message behind
this outbreak.

And how do you interpret this message?

This revolt has nothing to do with Islam. Islam, as a religion, has been
established in France for a long time, and the religious question has been
resolved in this country. Islam does not threaten France's future in any
way. But it is the social question that poses a true danger to the unity of
the republic. Politicians across the political spectrum have underestimated
this reality. They stick their heads in the sand and mislead their
constituents by attempting to denounce Islam as the source of the problem.

No one disputes the magnitude of social rifts in French society. But it
just so happens that these divides run along ethnic and religious lines.
Hasn't Islam promoted or even encouraged the formation of social ghettos,
the isolation of ethnic communities?

The concepts of unity and equality, which are idealized to the point of
excess in France's political rhetoric, are nothing but myths and blatant
lies at the social level. The main purpose of the public debates over
Islam, integration and immigration is to stir up fear. In a sense,
politicians use these debates as ideological strategies, as a way to avoid
confronting reality.

What are they attempting to distract from?

The truth is that certain French citizens are treated as second-class
citizens, if not the leprous members of the national community. Their
children are sent to ghetto schools and taught by inexperienced teachers,
they are crammed into inhumane public housing developments, and they are
confronted with an essentially closed job market. In short, they live in a
bleak, devastated universe. France is disintegrating before our eyes into
socioeconomic communities, into territorial and social apartheid. The rich
live in their own ghettos. Institutionalized racism is a daily reality.

Isn't Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy aware of this when he calls for
targeted assistance for the poor, for dialogue with the Muslims and for
relaxing France's rigorous secularism?

Sarkozy is acutely aware of the potential for votes in the suburbs. In
crises such as the current one, he shows his true face: contempt and
rudeness. If he views entire sections of the population as "riffraff," he
shouldn't be surprised if that's the way they end up behaving. He is giving
the police free rein in a climate characterized by lack of respect. He is
fixated on the 2007 presidential election instead of developing a workable
political structure for 2020. Changes will only take place in this country
when the residents of the suburbs are treated as fully entitled Frenchmen,
as part of the solution, not an expression of the problem.

That's all very well and good -- but doesn't self-criticism have a place
alongside criticism? Are Muslim immigrants truly interested in integration,
or do they prefer segregation?

The attempt to Islamicize social issues perverts and falsifies political
discourse. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe value the fact
that they live in democratic, constitutional states, states that guarantee
them freedom of conscience and religion. But mutual trust is often
shattered, and the result is that fear and racism are deeply affecting
France, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Germany. By the time they have
reached the second, third or fourth generation, the descendants of
immigrants should no longer be stigmatized as ghetto children, as "scum"
who are "out of control."

Nevertheless, what makes the integration of Muslims so difficult, compared
with earlier immigrants from Poland, Italy, Spain and Portugal?

Two things, I believe. First, this immigration no longer occurs in
individual waves; instead, it is a large-scale and continuous immigration.
That's the problem of quantity. And then there is the issue of quality. For
Muslim immigrants, religion is inseparable from their roots and identity.
They feel that transforming themselves from Moroccans or Algerians into
Frenchmen makes them bad Muslims. This makes integration more difficult
because it apparently forces Muslims to choose between two alternatives:
self-abandonment or self-isolation.

But hasn't Islam remained a foreign religion in the Western world, a
religion that has yet to enter the modern age?

There are traditionalists, adherents to a literal exegesis of the Koran. I
have spent the last 15 years campaigning for a genuinely European Islam,
one that requires evolution with respect to time and the environment, as
well as a separation of dogmatism and rationality. Islam cannot place
itself outside of history.

And where is the boundary between dogma and reason, between being faithful
to tradition and being receptive to the modern age?

The dogmatic and, therefore, invulnerable core in Islam is understandably
simple: acknowledgement of faith, prayer, charity and fasting. Almost
everything else is open to interpretation and modification in space and
time.

It does indeed sound clear and simple. Why don't we put it to the test with
an example: Is a Muslim permitted to break with his faith?

Not according to the majority opinion among Koran scholars. But the
prohibition on apostasy arose at a time when the first Muslim followers of
the prophet Mohammed were at war with neighboring tribes. At the time,
changing one's faith was tantamount to high treason or desertion. Nowadays
this context has changed completely.

In other words, the fight against "infidels" is completely outmoded?

Even the concept of the infidel is misleading, because the infidel is
normally someone with a different faith, someone who refuses to recognize
the truth of the words of the Koran, as revealed by God. He has every right
to do so, as long as he does not question my right to believe in my truth.

So each individual must become blessed in his own way? What about atheists?

The logic of freedom of religion implies freedom to be an atheist, even
though, from a historical perspective, this has not been accepted in the
Muslim world...

...and often leads to brutal punishment. How do you feel about equal rights
for men and women?

We need an Islamic feminism. Traditional Islam views the women merely as
mother, wife, daughter or sister. She has obligations and rights in this
capacity. But we must come to a point at which we treat the women as an
independent individual with a right to self-determination, as someone who
can run her own life without coercion.

Should she be permitted to decide for herself whether to stop wearing the
head scarf?

Of course, just as she is permitted to decide whether to wear the head
scarf.

But that's an illusion, at least in the real world. Women and girls are not
emancipated within their families.

You're right. This is often the case, but emancipation can only come from
within; it cannot be dictated by someone else. A law banning the wearing of
head scarves changes nothing, except perhaps external appearance.
Naturally, Islamic feminism must also include the right to education, to
work and the freedom to select one's own husband.

That's all fine and good, but can you explain, then, why you have publicly
called for a moratorium on the stoning of women accused of committing
adultery -- rather than condemning the practice outright? Some would argue
that's hypocritical.

Once again, Islam can only be modernized from within. If I stand there and
state that I condemn the practice of stoning, that this punishment is
despicable, it changes nothing. My fellow Muslims will say: Brother Tariq,
you became a European, a Swiss citizen, so you are no longer one of us. I
want to trigger a process of contemplation and thought within the Islamic
community. Critiques and attacks from the outside can produce tension.
Incidentally, a number of U.S. states have imposed a moratorium on the
death penalty, in an effort to buy time to think about the meaning and
legitimacy of this penalty.

Is a tendency toward violence inherent to Islam? Isn't it true that many
Muslims view jihad as an elementary part of Islamic identity?

Are the Crusades an elementary part of Christianity? No. Every community
has the right to self-defense. The Palestinians have the right to fight for
their independence from Israel. But this goal does not justify all means.
Nothing legitimizes the killing of innocent civilians. The suicide bomber
who blows up Israeli children cannot transform himself into a martyr. The
Palestinian problem is not an Islamic problem.

Where do you see the process of reform and modernization of Islam, of which
you have been a proponent? Has it made any progress anywhere?

In Europe. The impetus must come from European Islam and then influence the
Arab world. There is some overlap between the universal values of Western
democracy and those of Islam -- the constitutional state operating under
the rule of law, the equality of citizens, universal suffrage, the
changeover of power, separation of the private and public spheres. These
are basic principles, and although they are not spelled out in the Koran, I
do not believe that they contradict Islamic tradition.

That is an opinion that many Muslim legal scholars do not share.

An excessively literal interpretation of the Koran ever since the 13th
century has led Islam into intellectual calcification and political
tension. Remaining faithful to the texts must be distinguished from
interpretation of historical and social context. If we begin applying this
exegesis and hermeneutics, we will begin to see progress in Islam thought.

Your words are like those of a rationalist, an enlightened theologian with
purely intellectual ambitions. But in political reality, in France, Great
Britain and the United States, you are suspected of secretly promoting the
expansion of Islam and sympathizing with violence.

Oh yes, I am one of the most maligned Muslim intellectuals. Tariq Ramadan,
the slippery trickster. They talk about people like me the way they used to
talk about the Jews: He is Swiss and European, but his loyalties also lie
elsewhere. He says one thing and thinks something else. He is a member of
an international organization -- in the past, it was world Jewry, today
it's world Islam. I am disparaged as if I were a Muslim Jew.

Could that have something to do with your family history? Your grandfather,
Hassan al-Banna, was the founder of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in
1928, an organization that envisioned an Islamic fundamentalist
transformation.

Thoughts are not genetically inherited traits. I admire my grandfather for
his anti-colonial fight against the British. He was very involved in
education for girls and women. His five daughters -- my aunts and my mother
-- all attended university. And the organization he founded was very
progressive for its time. However, I am highly critical of the Brotherhood,
with its affected, conspiratorial behavior, its hierarchical structures and
its oversimplified slogans.

Were you ever a member of the Brotherhood?

I can assure you that I am no Muslim Brother, despite the fact that my
critics have repeatedly launched this rumor in an effort to slander and
harm me.

Do you ever think about forming your own party, organization or movement?

No. I am not a politician. I have often been approached in this regard in
the past 15 years, but I have always declined these sorts of offers. I view
myself as an independent, critical intellectual, as someone who tries to
stimulate thought on the left and the right, to encourage intellectual
evolution. The Islamic world is obsessed with the notion of strong leaders.
This is a mistake. We don't need powerful leaders, but rather
unconventional, progressive thinkers with the courage to open our minds.

Translated from German by Christopher Sultan.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

This article has been provided by Der Spiegel through a special arrangement

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home