Tariq Ramadan controversy: Moulding Muslim leaders

Never a dull moment when you have someone like Tariq Ramadan. Now the debate is about his du’a for Palestine:
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onuEStqTk20&e /]

The translation (by weblog Islam in Europe) is as follows:
Islam in Europe: Rotterdam: VVD complains about Tariq Ramadan prayer

(0:00) God, we ask for your strength and support whenever we tell the world that you are the only true God. You God you are not born, you are not unborn. Allah, we ask for your approval and count on your paradise.

(0:21) God, let us be of the Mouwahidin. God, let us belong to the people of Tawhid, to the people who recognize that there is no other God except you and that there is no other power without you. God, accept our prayer, and deeds. God, accept our prayers and let us belong to the accepted people.

(1:09) to the people loved by you, to the patient ones, you God, you are the God of this world. You are the God of the weak. Accept therefore our deeds and prayers. Allah, forgive us and be merciful towards us, forgive us.

(1:40) God, you are the God of forgiveness. Will you therefore forgive us? God forgive us because are much disposed towards forgiveness.

(2.05) You are the God of this world. You are the only God. Accept therefore everything of us. God, be merciful towards our parents.

(2:21) Good, be merciful towards our parents and towards the parents of our parents. God, be merciful towards everybody who is guilty of anything in this world and in the last world. God, forgive all sins of the Islamic deceased who witnessed on earth that you are the only true God, and that your prophet is the only messenger.

(2:47) God, let your light and appearance descend on their grave. God, strengthen the belief of our brothers and sisters in Palestine

(3.13) God, Strengthen their belief, those who are in Palestine, and let them celebrate their victory over their enemy, your enemy, enemy of the faith

(3.26) Only with your victory and mercy, you generous God. Allah, strengthen their belief in Palestine, in Chechnya, in Afghanistan, and in Morocco, and in Algeria, and in Tunisia, and in Egypt, and in Sudan, and in Kashmir, and in the whole world and out of the way places, you merciful God.

(4.01) Accept everything of them, and let them stand with both feet on the ground, and give them a place in your paradise, with the chosen believers and with the martyrs.

(4:15) God, strengthen their belief, those who are in prison and who live under torture. They are innocent. God, our enemies, your enemies, and enemies of the faith, let us leave to you.[we leave them to you, MdK)

(4:38) Let the Islam and the Muslims triumph and let your word triumph everywhere.

(4:47) God, let us be stronger than ourselves. God, purify our hearts and strengthen our bones and accept us and let us belong to the patient ones. God, unite us and our hearts and let us be brothers and sisters of each other, for you.

(5:23) God, we ask for your love. God, we ask for your love. God, we ask for your love. God let us belong to the people for whom you have love. God, let us fear you as if we see you.

(6:05) God, purify our hearts. God, we welcome your prophet and messenger.

Last week we were witness of a debate about his, according to a gay magazine, homofobic and mygonist statements. This issue in this du’a is that according to Ramadan’s opponents Ramadan accepts everything that is done in the name of Allah in Palestine, Afghanistan, Algeria, Sudan, Chechnya and Kashir and that he hopes that God will let Islam, Muslims and the word of God triumph everywhere. “Everything” probably not referring (according to the opponents) to the works of the Red Crescent in those areas but to terrorism. The conservative liberals of the VVD (Bas van Tijn) in Rotterdam (where Ramadan is based at the Erasmus University and advisor for a dialogue-project) have asked questions in the meeting of the city council:

Investigation into islamosoph Ramadan

In the Netherlands we have a separation of church and state. Mr. Ramadan is free to make the statements heard on the video. Everyone will have his or her private opinion about the content.
However, Mr. Ramadan is hired by the municipality of Rotterdam as an advior for the ‘social dialogueproject’. A project that does not shy away from taboos. An advisor always takes with him a past and a context. On 23 January 2007, the city board has already clearly stated to know his past and context, but finds him utterly suited to play a prominent role in the debate about societal issues. It is important to have total clarity about the way past and context are related to the aforementioned advices and the role of the consultant.

The VVD has, in the light of the aforementioned, the following questions for board:

1. How does the Board view the contents of the speech in relation the mr. Ramadan being a consultant for the city of Rotterdam and his role in the streetdialogues?
2. Is het possible for the Board to imagine that there is uncertainty about the exact intentions of Mr. Ramadan. Is he building bridges or someone who calls for ‘accepting everything’ in the interest of the triumphing of Islam?

It seems that the taboo breaking dialogue project is breaking a lot of taboos but confirms the taboo on particular statements by Muslims. If a Muslim states that Islam does not approve of homosexuality, and he does not consider homosexuality normal and natural, why force him to change opinion, as Valenta asked last Saturday in an op-ed in NRC Handelsblad? Furthermore, I would add, if he does not approve of homosexuality but at the same time pleads for respect and refraining from condemnation, why can’t he be part of the dialogue project. In fact I would say, he is the perfect guy for it:

Tariq RAMADAN

The Islamic teaching as a whole, as do all the monotheistic religions, prohibits homosexuality and does not promote it. It is perceived as against the Divine project for human beings. Now it must be clear that Muslims cannot condemn the people with no understanding: It is important for Muslims to be able to say “I disagree with what you are doing and respect who you are.” This is the way towards mutual tolerance and this is the way Muslims should act in their daily life. To be a gay does not prevent someone from being a Muslim: I know Muslims who are gay. Some are deeply suffering, others are doubting themselves and others are claiming their right to be so. It is important, once again not to condemn the beings while we may disapprove the behaviour or the acts. This is the way to respect each other, to remain both open and faithful to one’s belief.

His du’a for Palestine is not very remarkable (I realize some may find that very scary); it is a regular du’a asking God for justice for oppressed people. Stating that he approves of violent and terrorist campaigns by Muslim extremists is stretching his message to the extreme because he also states

God, our enemies, your enemies, and enemies of the faith, let us leave to you [we leave them to you]

And again, even if he did approve, why wouldn’t he be just the right person for the dialogue? In fact it appears now that the frequent attacks on him are more dangerous for his position as a consultant than his statements. In particular because he is not only under attack from Dutch secularists and anti-islamists but also from radical groups who oppose his cooperation with Dutch authorities and his statements about homosexuality and his call for a moratorium on corporate punishment. According to these critics Ramadan sells himself to the Dutch authorities which inevitable means that he will have to adjust (in their view dilute) the Islamic message. Their interpretation seems to be correct due to this controversy.

As a more eloquent response (although not related to this case) I would like to direct your attention to two articles in The Guardian of last week:

Gary Younge on Muslims and Labour’s anti-terror strategy | Comment is free | The Guardian

Somewhere out there is the Muslim that the British government seeks. Like all religious people he (the government is more likely to talk about Muslim women than to them) supports gay rights, racial equality, women’s rights, tolerance and parliamentary democracy. He abhors the murder of innocent civilians without qualification – unless they are in Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq. He wants to be treated as a regular British citizen – but not by the police, immigration or airport security. He wants the best for his children and if that means unemployment, racism and bad schools, then so be it.

He raises his daughters to be assertive: they can wear whatever they want so long as it’s not a headscarf. He believes in free speech and the right to cause offence but understands that he has neither the right to be offended nor to speak out. Whatever an extremist is, on any given day, he is not it.

He regards himself as British – first, foremost and for ever. But whenever a bomb goes off he will happily answer for Islam. Even as he defends Britain’s right to bomb and invade he will explain that Islam is a peaceful religion. Always prepared to condemn other Muslims and supportive of the government, he has credibility in his community not because he represents its interests to the government, but because he represents the government’s interests to Muslims. He uses that credibility to preach restraint and good behaviour. Whatever a moderate is, on any given day, he is it.

On his slender shoulders lies Britain’s domestic anti-terror campaign. And as soon as the government finds him things are going to start turning around. Until then we are resigned to the fact that we will be about as successful at fighting terrorism at home as we are abroad and for the same reason. Unburdened by any desire to forge consensus or engage in negotiation, the government seeks to craft new realities out of whole cloth and then wonders why no one wants to wear them. And so it is that the mythical Muslim will prove as elusive as weapons of mass destruction or the beacons of democracy that Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to become.

And
Robert Lambert and Jonathan Githens-Mazer: Mainstream Islamists such as Daud Abdullah are being unfairly demonised | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Our interviews with British Islamists have demonstrated a sense of an Islamic imperative that is strikingly similar to Tony Benn’s interpretation of Jesus’ call to active citizenship on behalf of the politically oppressed. This interpretation isn’t necessarily universal or representative – both Islam and Christianity have powerful advocates who oppose this view and believe in religion without politics. It follows that mainstream British Islamist organisations, like the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, the British Muslim Initiative, Islamic Forum Europe and many more, do not represent the entirety of British Muslim opinion, any more than Methodists represent all of Protestantism. More quietist strands of Muslim practice prefer to keep their religion in the private sphere, just like many British Christians.

[…]

Mainstream British Islamists are simultaneously under attack by extremist Muslim groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir and Islam For The UK, an off-shoot from al-Muhaijoun. These fringes claim that British Islamists have sold out by working within British democracy.

They also attack British Islamists for working harmoniously with a wide range of secular activists including gay people and feminists, most notably in campaigns such as the Stop The War coalition. Which is why it’s a gross misrepresentation to conflate mainstream British Islamists with Hizb ut-Tahrir, and entirely disingenuous to suggest they serve as a conveyor belt for terrorist movements like al-Qaida. On the contrary, some of the most effective voices against al-Qaida influence are British Islamists.

Now British Islamists find themselves under constant scrutiny in Britain: from Islamophobes who call for any form of Islamically-inspired political behaviour to be controlled and condemned, and from fringe groups who believe that Muslim democratic political engagement in Britain is inherently sinful. This all-encompassing scrutiny has recently played out in the allegations against the Muslim Council of Britain’s deputy secretary general, Daud Abdullah. On the one hand he is accused of being disloyal to Britain, on the other unIslamic for being politically engaged. It is reasonable that policy makers would want to investigate the first accusation. In so doing, however, they need to keep a strong sense of perspective.

In the months ahead, democratic and peaceful political Islamist activism in Britain will continue to focus on the injustices suffered by Palestinians at the hands of Israel, and call for Hamas to be treated on an equal footing to Israel. It urgently needs to be recognised that, in so doing, British Islamists demonstrate their appetite for British politics and their distance from the sectarian and alienating tendencies of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the violent and millenarian views of al-Qaida, and the exclusionary and reactionary views of the Quilliam Foundation.

No, British Islamists aren’t the only Muslim political voice in modern Britain, but they don’t deserve the attacks they are enduring, and by the rules of our political system they don’t deserve to be excluded. Let’s hope that the government stops listening to the fringes, and recognises the variety of mainstream Muslim political voices before it’s too late.