By Abu Muhammad
In ‘What I Believe’, Dr Tariq Ramadan’s latest book, he endeavours to clarify some of the misunderstood positions he holds. It is aimed at ordinary people, journalists, politicians, social workers, teachers and others, who do not have the time or perhaps sometimes the capacity to grasp the academic and philosophical language he employs in his writings. This book sets out to clarify the basic ideas which he has been advocating for more than twenty years.
This is long overdue. I have personally come across many people who attack and call Dr Ramadan and others of having deviant opinions and hence label him and the others like him of being deviant. When asked if they have read his works, the response almost always is in the negative.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Dr Ramadan, we should not let others decide our opinion of him without trying to analyse for ourselves his words from his writings. From an intellectual perspective this attitude is dishonest and lacks integrity. If one feels at ease with himself at calling other Muslims deviants, one should do so once they have read his writings (if one feels that is the right thing to do).
This is the reason why he explains he has authored this particular book, “Rather than entering my name in a web search engine (and coming up with the million links that mainly report what others have written about me) or being content with the so-called free virtual encyclopedias that are in fact so biased (like Wikipedia, where the factual errors and partisan readings are astounding), I give readers this opportunity to read me in the original and simply get direct access to my thought.”
He also tackles the accusation against him of practicing doublespeak. He explains, “doublespeak consists in saying one thing in front of an audience to flatter or mislead them, and something else, different in content, elsewhere, to a different audience or in a different language. Adapting one’s level of speech to one’s audience, or adapting the nature of one’s references, is not doublespeak. When addressing my students I use elevated language with philosophical references that they can understand; when speaking before social protagonists or manual labourers, I also use appropriate speech and illustrations; and if I speak to Muslims, my language and references also take into account their level of discourse and their universe of understanding. This is a necessary pedagogy. To avoid doublespeak, what matters is that the substance of the discourse does not change.”
This is in fact the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. He also deals with plethora of other issues such as identity, culture, religion, participation, etc. Therefore, those who are quick to label him as a deviant and with other nefarious labels should hold their tongue and read what he has to say.
He is not trying to change Islam when he talks about reform in his previous book, Radical Reform. He wishes to clarify that it is our understanding that needs to change. He says, many of our scholars have a cultural projection of Islam – meaning that they read the text with a preconceived understanding of a given verse and hadith and which is why we have in the canon of law many rulings that seem to be biased against a particular group in the community, i.e. women.
This is very important for us to comprehend. It is true that we should not approach the Qur’an with preconceived ideas and theories in order to prove and support them. However, despite every effort we exert to be objective, our understanding of the Qur’an is bound to be influenced by our own experiences. This cannot be avoided. This is what, according to Dr Ramadan has been happening over the centuries. That is why we need to reform our understanding of the texts that caters for the need and requirements of our time and context.
This is not an easy task but one that is complex and will raise much opposition since people are always comfortable with what they have been accustomed to, and change makes them scared and uncomfortable. To do this, he explains, we need experts from all fields, psychologists, scientists, politicians, teachers, to advise and work with Islamic jurists (fuqaha) to apply the texts in the current context and world – which have different needs and expectations from earlier generations.
Thus he is not changing Islam or reforming it, it is reforming our understanding, our interpretations of the principles and texts.
“TR is using the same usool and foundation those scholars who wrote against him”
What are these usool?
It’s important because the previous posts have shown he lacks sufficient ground and foundation for his fatwa (and whether he is qualified to make the fatwa is another issue izzuddeen has touched on).
@Captain
he made some valid points but they addressed and have been addressed. But, his intro is good! does that mean those who call for a contextual understanding of Islam are mordernists trying to do away with the fundementals of Islam? Scholars such as qaradawi, alwani, bin bayya, faisal mawlawi, ahmad raysuni, buti – will you dear readers attack them because they follow the same line of thinking. Yes TR may go against some issues with these scholars but he is using the same usool as them and being brave!
well – this is not the platform for it. If you read their books and writings you will understand.
as izzuddeen, wiki and muslim have made clear, you can’t do ijtihaad if you aren’t a mujtahid.
also, buti, qaradawi and others are greater scholars than him, that is why they have refrained from calling on an indefinate ban on entire hudood. the islamonline is a damning condemnation by movement scholars leaders
No this is important. We have heard the repeated call for ‘discussing the ideas’ and now we see a u-turn.
The Islamic grounding for his argument IS the ideas we should be talking about, and we’re commanded to refer to Allah and His messenger id disputes. From previous posts we have seen that there is insufficient grounding, but you claim otherwise. Please explain clearly the Islamic ‘usool’ and foundations, his Islamic justifications and reasoning as to how he got from changing the fard implementation of Allah’s commands to a suspension of it.
This is an obligation on anyone who is making such a call, and for anyone who supports it. It is Allah;s religion after all.
err, he has not call for a indifinate ban on the hudud.
@OK
why dont you read his articles: http://www.tariqramadan.com
and all other previous posts
Salam
I just wanted to make a distinction – reforming interpretations of the principles of the texts is necessarily reforming Islam. Reforming our understanding of current issues with respect to islamic rulings is something nobody would have a problem with – this is because this is a necessary aspect of implementing Islam – knowing the customary definitions on certain things which have not been restricted or defined in the revelation.
For example, it would be necessary to gather experts from paticular fields to come to an agreement of things like how we define sickness, death, travelling, ‘difficulty’ of agriculture (for zakah purposes), etc. And this has been done very well (there any many fiqh councils across the globe).
The problem arises when we overstep these boundaries and go into territory that we are not supposed to change or redefine – i.e. those things which the scholars of ummah have agreed upon the interpretation of – because this falls under the jurisdiction of ijma’. I believe the criticism that Dr Ramadan has received from Islamic scholars is because of changing that which is not allowed to be changed, not reforming our understanding of current topics required for personalised fatwas and so forth.
my 2 pence
Salman- Sabeel??
If so man- check out the first pages of the comments– whole of Sabeel summerised! lol
“TR is using the same usool and foundation those scholars who wrote against him” – e.mam
What are these usool?
It’s important because the previous posts have shown he lacks sufficient ground and foundation for his fatwa (and whether he is qualified to make the fatwa is another issue izzuddeen has touched on).
“well – this is not the platform for it. If you read their books and writings you will understand.” – e.mam
No this is important. We have heard the repeated call for ‘discussing the ideas’ and now we suddenly see a u-turn.
The Islamic grounding for his argument IS the ideas we should be talking about, and we’re commanded to refer to Allah and His messenger id disputes. From previous posts we have seen that there is insufficient grounding, but you claim otherwise. Please explain clearly the Islamic ‘usool’ and foundations, his Islamic justifications and reasoning as to how he got from changing the fard implementation of Allah’s commands to a suspension of it.
This is an obligation on anyone who is making such a call, and for anyone who supports it. It is Allah;s religion after all.
@Salman
shukran for your contribution. This area is very deep. There are many areas where people in the past have claimed there is an ijma but in actual fact it isnt. Take for this issie: http://www.lamppostproductions.com/files/articles/PRESERVING%20THE%20FREEDOM%20FOR%20FAITH.pdf
I dont want to open more doors to debate but as you can see not all so called principles are to be blindly followed for all time.
@OK
as i have said go and read his articles: http://www.tariqramadan.com and also all other previous posts.
e.mam, if you have also read those articles and the previous comments on this thread you will know that he was criticised for not producing any sufficient juristic or statistical proof:
““A notable feature of Ramadan’s call is the absence of any juristic opinions to support his views. Ramadan refers to “the majority of the `ulamaa’s [religious scholars]” without specifying names or citing juristic proofs. ” – Islamonline
The other quotes (see comment 98) also show he presented no statistical proofs either.
As for the so-called Islamic proof of the ananlogy of Umar (r) and the famine, then this has also been rejected (please show someone who has not) and the article by
A Zubair further breaks down the fallacy of his mistaken ‘juristic’ reasoning.
Yet you claim he has been more courageous than all the other scholars and used the same ‘usool’ and ‘foundations’ as they did. Clearly, he has not shown what these ‘usool’ and foundations are, and neither have you. After spending all this time ranting about discussing the ‘ideas’ you tell people that ‘this is not the platform’.
As our obligations towards the One who revealed this religion which we’ve been talking about all this time, it is incumbent that one can explain clearly his justification to Allah how he managed to change Fard commands from Allah to suspension of those commands.
Let us hear those ‘usooli’ arguments and reasoning that TR has used, otherwise let us refrain from supporting him in what every scholar so far has condemned him for.
again, those scholars did not condemn him, they disagreed with him politely. It was not I who was ranting dear friend about discussing ideas and then not producing it. I have been producing it and TR has produced it, if you do not agree with what he has produced that is your right, what can I do about it other than what I have said.
shukran fi amanillah a’udhibillah minash shaytaanri rajeem
@e.mam
afwan e.mam. The issue is not really whether or not certain things have ijma’ on them – the issue is the validity of ijma’ as a concept and its place in general. Of course the scholars defined the finer theoretical details of ijma’ differently but this has little or no affect on practice – the sahabah did not pass round petitions to obtain ijma’ – we have to look at this from a holistic point of view. Anyway sorry for repeating what others may have said, I did not see that anyone had posted comments when I first saw the article so I had to say something – but looks like this is under control! I don’t like forums anyway.
JazakAllah khayra but I don’t have time to read that apostacy document but I can guess what it argues – I don’t think that’s relevant to the topic of ijma’ anyway because there is overwhelming evidence for the punishment of public apostacy without going into what the scholars say about it.
@Salman
ok, the first part of your comment is confusing, also since you have already made your mind up about ijmaa and other things I posted then thank you and good night.
@Salman You said “Anyway sorry for repeating what others may have said, I did not see that anyone had posted comments when I first saw the article so I had to say something – but looks like this is under control! I don’t like forums anyway.
It is sad that a group of people (from both sides of the argument) are treating this as a forum and private club. They are going into matters so deeply and continuing the debate over so many days, that it does NOT allow other casual visitors and readers to comment.
In the About Us page of this blog it says “Please note that BtL is not a ‘forum’ or a ‘chat room’…”
I don’t think that this style of dicussion was the purpose of this blog. So people like Salman are now reluctant to comment.
Shame that.
@Hanif
As they always say around here , if you don’t like it don’t take part.
if you have qualms with the way the blog runs contact blog admin at given address.
Also, if you feel so strongly about what you say, then refrain from making such ‘deep’ comments as those you made earlier.
Shukran.
Do you brothers not feel shame, when EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT you presented in support of the mistake that tariq ramadan has made (along with all his other mistakes), everyone on this blog including ulamaa and leaders from across the globe have refuted him?
Please brothers, if your hearts and minds are closed to the inevitable/irresistable truth, then close your mouths also as it will not utter any truth neither. Just a nasiha for me and for everyone.
Have honor and acknowledge that you erred, it happens to the best of us and will undoubtedly happen again. That would have been more honorable than to continue pretending that Dr tariq was right, uncontroversial, mujtahid, etc, etc, etc.
Also, I am disgusted that e.mam would like to challenge the concept of ijmaa’ and the huduud on apostacy! You brothers don’t know where to stop. Fear your lord!
Allaahummaj’alnaa minal muhtadeen. May allah guide you e.mam, abdullah, m matin, others.
Izzuddeen
“inevitable/irresistable truth”. No, I really don’t think so.
Your perception of the truth is not THE truth; it is only your perception.
No one has a monopoly over the truth, you or anyone for that matter. The Words of Allah and the prophetic tradition, is the only absolute truth.
Everyone else is in earnest search to find meaning and interpret this truth; this part is human and is fallible. This is the undeniable reality that we all overlook.
Some people have expressed their opinions in support of Prof. Tariq Ramadan and others like you have expressed your opinion in disagreeing with his views and ideas. All nice and acceptable but the problem with how you and others who have commented on this blog is your intolerant and self righteous approach. An opinion different to you then oh, his doing this to please the kuffar, his being dishonest, his not a scholar and so on….
Self righteousness kills!
Please mend your ways, accept people and be merciful towards those who disagree with you and give them the benefit of the doubt.
May Allah guide us ALL.
Was-salaam