Michael
Mar 12th 2010, 08:36 PM
This is an essay taken from the New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/contents/2010/02/15), a British magazine, known for being 'moderate left'. The current issue has a special focus on Muslim culture.
For those of you unfamiliar with the name of Tariq Ramadan, suffice it to say that he is a rather famous 'Muslim intellectual' with impressive western education credentials. Here's the Wiki page for Tariq Ramadan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan). Quite an interesting fellow. ;)
Good Muslim, bad Muslim
by Tariq Ramadan
Tariq Ramadan argues for a new understanding of what it means to be a “moderate” Muslim.
Article (http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2010/02/muslim-religious-moderation)
I'm not going to quote the whole essay, though I certainly recommend it. Its not very long, but too large to quote entirely.
I'll just cite two interesting paragraphs that show you where this fellow is coming from...
Those of us who consider ourselves reformists are often attacked in internal Muslim debates for having "gone out of Islam" in our search for context and new understandings of religious texts. In the west, as well as in Asia and Africa, including in some Muslim-majority countries, I have repeatedly been called a kafir (disbeliever), a murtad (apostate) or an impostor seeking to adulterate Islam and destroy it from within. This happens to a large number of Muslim reformists - who, paradoxically, are at the same time considered "fundamentalist" and "extremist" within some right-wing circles in the west.
...
I have had personal experience of these shifting definitions. The Washington Post once described me as the "Muslim Martin Luther", only for the Sun to then tar me as an "Islamic militant". In 2003, I was received at the US state department as an "open" and "moderate" Muslim. Less than a year later, under the same Bush administration, my criticism of American policy in Iraq and Palestine (where I recognise the legitimacy of the resistance without in any way condoning attacks against civilians and non-combatants) had transformed me into a potential "supporter of terrorism" and "extremist". I was forbidden entry into the United States. Then, six years later, the terrorism- and extremism-related accusations were dropped by the US authorities. The Obama administration has decided that my opinions are not dangerous and that I may be useful to the critical debate around Islam: I am now allowed to travel to the United States.
Indeed, this must be quite challenging to live with on a personal level.
Anyway, the whole point of this thread, besides plugging Tariq Ramadan's name, is to draw attention to key point of Ramadan's essay - that 'moderation' is indeed a core Islamic value and that this interpretation is the dominant one throughout most Islamic societies and nations.
But what is most interesting, or perhaps surprising to me, is that Tariq Ramadan concludes his essay with this paragraph:
There exists a strictly religious debate, couched in the language of Islamic jurisprudence and the fundamentals of faith, over the notion of moderation. If this is grasped - as it must be - it becomes possible to approach the more relevant political questions with far less prejudice and naivety. We should never forget that religious moderation, however it is defined, is perfectly compatible with a radical, non-violent, democratic political stance that rejects all forms of domination, exploitation and oppression.
I suppose one can't help but to look for signs of the 'long awaited' Islamic reformation! :lol:
Though, to be fair and not just a cheerleader here, I must point out that Tariq Ramadan's argument is that 'moderation' is a 'mainstream' value of Islamic culture, but in the final analysis, he points to a religious debate where it is hoped that 'moderation' might win the day? :ummm:
Though, that's not really a critique of Tariq Ramadan - that is perhaps another typical paradox of society and culture, not much different than the 'strictly political debate' about torture going on in the USA, seemingly at odds with 'mainstream' values of a post-Englightenment Christian-based culture, and one also hopes that 'rationalism' might win the day.
For those of you unfamiliar with the name of Tariq Ramadan, suffice it to say that he is a rather famous 'Muslim intellectual' with impressive western education credentials. Here's the Wiki page for Tariq Ramadan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan). Quite an interesting fellow. ;)
Good Muslim, bad Muslim
by Tariq Ramadan
Tariq Ramadan argues for a new understanding of what it means to be a “moderate” Muslim.
Article (http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2010/02/muslim-religious-moderation)
I'm not going to quote the whole essay, though I certainly recommend it. Its not very long, but too large to quote entirely.
I'll just cite two interesting paragraphs that show you where this fellow is coming from...
Those of us who consider ourselves reformists are often attacked in internal Muslim debates for having "gone out of Islam" in our search for context and new understandings of religious texts. In the west, as well as in Asia and Africa, including in some Muslim-majority countries, I have repeatedly been called a kafir (disbeliever), a murtad (apostate) or an impostor seeking to adulterate Islam and destroy it from within. This happens to a large number of Muslim reformists - who, paradoxically, are at the same time considered "fundamentalist" and "extremist" within some right-wing circles in the west.
...
I have had personal experience of these shifting definitions. The Washington Post once described me as the "Muslim Martin Luther", only for the Sun to then tar me as an "Islamic militant". In 2003, I was received at the US state department as an "open" and "moderate" Muslim. Less than a year later, under the same Bush administration, my criticism of American policy in Iraq and Palestine (where I recognise the legitimacy of the resistance without in any way condoning attacks against civilians and non-combatants) had transformed me into a potential "supporter of terrorism" and "extremist". I was forbidden entry into the United States. Then, six years later, the terrorism- and extremism-related accusations were dropped by the US authorities. The Obama administration has decided that my opinions are not dangerous and that I may be useful to the critical debate around Islam: I am now allowed to travel to the United States.
Indeed, this must be quite challenging to live with on a personal level.
Anyway, the whole point of this thread, besides plugging Tariq Ramadan's name, is to draw attention to key point of Ramadan's essay - that 'moderation' is indeed a core Islamic value and that this interpretation is the dominant one throughout most Islamic societies and nations.
But what is most interesting, or perhaps surprising to me, is that Tariq Ramadan concludes his essay with this paragraph:
There exists a strictly religious debate, couched in the language of Islamic jurisprudence and the fundamentals of faith, over the notion of moderation. If this is grasped - as it must be - it becomes possible to approach the more relevant political questions with far less prejudice and naivety. We should never forget that religious moderation, however it is defined, is perfectly compatible with a radical, non-violent, democratic political stance that rejects all forms of domination, exploitation and oppression.
I suppose one can't help but to look for signs of the 'long awaited' Islamic reformation! :lol:
Though, to be fair and not just a cheerleader here, I must point out that Tariq Ramadan's argument is that 'moderation' is a 'mainstream' value of Islamic culture, but in the final analysis, he points to a religious debate where it is hoped that 'moderation' might win the day? :ummm:
Though, that's not really a critique of Tariq Ramadan - that is perhaps another typical paradox of society and culture, not much different than the 'strictly political debate' about torture going on in the USA, seemingly at odds with 'mainstream' values of a post-Englightenment Christian-based culture, and one also hopes that 'rationalism' might win the day.