Tariq Ramadan: the liberals’ favourite Muslim
The post-modernist Muslim is worryingly short on ideas and tailors his message to different audiences, says Andrew Anthony
Although Koranic study and French post-modern theory may seem to be two very distinct modes of thought, they in fact share a common openness to multiple interpretations. At least, that’s the polite way of putting it. Some might say that they are both refuges for intellectual vagueness and evasion.
If so, then no one has benefited more from this particular conjunction of obscurantism than Tariq Ramadan, who brings a post-modernist sensibility to the business of discussing Islam.
Plenty know who Ramadan is, but few know what he actually stands for
The grandson of Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ramadan is a senior research fellow at St Anthony’s College, Oxford, and president of the think tank European Muslim Network.
As such, he is often spoken of as a leading Muslim intellectual, a reformist who is able to move between the academic circuit, the clerical establishment (he's been an ardent defender of the reactionary Sunni scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi) and the wider Muslim population with equal felicity.
But so far the size of his reputation comfortably outstrips the strength of his ideas. There are plenty of people who know who Ramadan is, but far fewer who know what he actually stands for.
And of those that do think they know, some believe that Ramadan tailors his message to different audiences - secular and Muslim - to such an extent that it amounts to deception.
In one case he argues for a modernised Islam, in the other for an Islamised modernity. The French journalist Caroline Fourest set out to expose these alleged inconsistencies and wrote a book entitled Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan.
Reading Ramadan’s latest book, Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation (OUP, £16.99), does little to clear up the issue. In essence it's an argument for a less literalist approach to Islamic texts, but also for upholding the primacy of these texts.
This, in many ways, is the job that's confronted Christian theologians since the Enlightenment, and one need only look at the moral contortions that the Church of England regularly performs to see the problems of reconciling the 'word of God' with modern-day reality.
But better the muddle that anti-literalism entails than the inflexible certainties of religious doctrine. That is also Islam's best hope, and Ramadan may have a role to play in realising it - he certainly has a gift for muddled thought.
One of Ramadan's chapter headings is 'The Growing Complexity of the Real', and it serves the dual purpose of not only alerting the reader to an ontological challenge, but also to the more daunting challenge of Ramadan's writing style.
Ramadan called for a ‘moratorium’ on stoning adulterers and the like to death
A sample: "In the Universe, then, one can find definitive elements beyond the changing (natural laws and physical principles - as-sunan al-kawniyyah) as well as definitive elements at the core of the changing (the constants of history - sunan Allah), exactly in the same as there exist definitive transhistorical rules within the revealed text (belief and practice)…"
If you say so, Tariq.
Perhaps Ramadan's most famous, or infamous, statement was his call for a 'moratorium' on stoning adulterers and the like to death. He refused to denounce the practice (his brother even wrote a defence of the punishment) because it was sharia law, but instead argued that a moratorium would allow for more reasoned debate.
To his liberal supporters, who include the historian Timothy Garton Ash, it was a deft display of political compromise. To his liberal critics, it showed an unwillingness to confront barbarity. What it really pointed to was Ramadan’s determination to do just enough to stay in with both Islamic traditionalists and secular sympathisers. But to what end, however, it remains worryingly hard to say. ·
Comments are now closed on this article














Comments
@Peter Simmons: Tariq Ramadan's attraction in Europe is that he pinpoints the present cultural pessimism and offers a tempting answer for minds gone astray. Ramadan's tenure is paid by the local authorities of Rotterdam - i.e. by the tax payers. Europe has been in crisis even before the recent economic recession. In times of crisis, people start interpreting things in moral terms.
In his lectures at Rotterdam Erasmus (sic!) university Ramadan in a soothing voice repeats ad nauseam that islam is the answer to the moral crisis in the Western world. And yes, he does that in muddled, quasi therapeutic language. "We" need a "common language" and should "respect" each others sensitive spots and not make cartoons about the prophet Mohammed or Anne Frank, because "we" have a "common future together"in which ""we", muslims and everybody else, will share a unifying "European culture" in which islam is incorporated, et cetera.
Afterwards one wants to puke or go straight to a striptease bar and one can only think of Orwell: Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. And of course: War is Peace.
Shahzad: So the stoning to death we have heard about in Saudi Arabia didn't happen? I don't think the recipients would describe it as 'purely symbolic' either, if they had lived to comment. You appear to think that it is your or society's place to express distaste for what other adults do, it isn't, that's your problem, you just don't get it. That's because you come from a backward country kept in the 8th century by an aberrated woman-hating creed enforced by hate-filled misogynists whose only talent is growing a beard, whose ignorance of everything but their beloved book is obvious to all, and whose abuse of power makes every Muslim state a hell hole to anyone with a free mind and spirit. You seem to want to appear broad minded with your last sentence, but it has no echoes in the Koran, which sees it as every mullah's business what others 'do among themselves'.
The punishment of stoning to death for adultery finds absolutley no mention in the Koran. There is however a punishment of 100 lashes for both the man and the woman. But the requirement of four witnesses who have actually seen the sexual act and not just conjecture on anyones part makes certain that even this punishment can never be carried out. Besides, this punishment to is only in an extreme case. There are many other options which can be resorted to before this final penalty. The whole idea behind this is simply the expression of distaste for adultery and nothing else. The purely symbolic nature of this punishment must be recognised. What two or any number of adult people do among themselves behind closed doors is their private matter and no business of either God or State.
Ramadan's attraction is his seemingly modernist, liberal attitude, a far cry from such idiots as Fadhel Al-Sa'd: whose 'The sun circles the Earth because it is smaller than the Earth, as is evident in Koranic verses... No verse in the Koran indicates that the Earth is round or that it rotates. Anything that has no indication in the Koran is false' is so breathtakingly stupid that western liberals are naturally going to prefer anyone who makes some sense. But Andrew Anthony is right, refusing to condemn stoning to death for adultery shows an unwillingness to confront barbarity, and brands him as, at the very least, gutless. Those misguided Liberals still looking for the 'acceptable face of Islam' should give up if Ramadan is the best there is.