One word describes Tariq Ramadan’s "Western Muslims and the Future of Islam":
Seductive. He reinterprets fundamental Islamic principles to alleviate what he sees as a serious shortcoming in Europe’s
and America’s Muslim populations- that of non-integration. Perhaps,
reinterpretation is too strong a word, because he takes care not to move too
much outside orthodoxy. He brings up multiple views from respected scholars on
certain topics and deftly aligns himself with the view that is most comfortable with
modernity. He thus adopts the criteria of modern demands to re-evaluate otherwise
classical positions.
One of the thorny topics Ramadan tackles is the concept of darul al-harb (House of
War) and darul al-islam (House of Peace). Some Muslims believe that this
centuries-old classification of the world still applies, with non-Muslim
nations inevitably falling into the former category. Ramadan, however, prefers
Imam Shafi’i’s alternative label of "House of Witness" to apply to Europe and
America, where he rightly points out that the rights of Muslims are more
ardently protected than in Muslim nations.
His criticism of the minority mentality that Western Muslims unconsciously impose on
themselves is valid and reminiscent of the Jewish ghetto mindset in
pre-Holocaust Europe. However, his disapproval is neither controversial nor as
earth-shaking as he seems to think
it is. The language and style of his book almost assures that its key readers
would be young intellectuals who have been raised in secular education and
appreciate the wealth of Islamic information afforded by the Internet.
Inevitably, this Muslim Gen-Y would despise what they think is the outmoded thinking of their parents. The growing pressure on Muslim youths to condemn taqlid (adherence to a
School of Thought), for example, is a symptom of this general dissatisfaction.
I found his breakdown of the modern Salafist movements to be particularly
useful. It’s clear that he himself is a Salafist, but belongs to a reformist
stream whose predecessors are Muhammad Abduh, Jamal ud-Din al-Afghani and Hassan
al-Banna. He scorns the literalist flavor of Saudi Salafism, and repudiates the
political Salafism of groups like Hezb-al-Tahrir. This is understandable
considering that Ramadan is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen). Not surprisingly, Saudi
Salafists are contemptuous of al-Banna’s group, with Saudi Prince Nayef
openly
stating that the Ikhwan is the "the mother of all problems in the Arab
world."
Two things annoyed me about this otherwise thoughtful book. At times, he puts
Sufism as a valid Islamic science, but at others, seem to adopt the Orientalist
stance that Sufism is exotic and nothing less than a separate, albeit mystical
path. It’s not explicit, but I definitely got that vibe.
The second grouse is his waving of The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
as a model organization representing American Muslims.
This is neither accurate nor helpful, especially since CAIR’s founder, Mr Nihad Awad has
publicly admitted:
"I am in support of the Hamas movement."A significant number of Western Muslims do not, in actuality, consider CAIR as being representative of them.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Recent Comments