|
|
 |
  |
| Sunday, 3 October 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
A bridge across fear Rosemary Bechler "I want to go beyond the perception that I am only different from you, or that difference is the beginning and the end." In an interview of remarkable range and frankness, the influential Swiss-Egyptian philosopher, teacher and writer Tariq Ramadan talks to Rosemary Bechler of open Democracy about his life's project: bringing Muslims and Europe home to each other. Open Democracy: What is the personal background to your attempt to elaborate a fully European Islam?
Tariq Ramadan: I come from a family where everything was drenched in Islamic references, where my parents were totally involved in trying to live and teach as Muslims. During the first twenty-three years of my life in Switzerland, I visited Egypt many times, and my sole dream was to return to what I considered my home country. But slowly I began to feel that I belonged elsewhere. I was linked to the principles of Islam, but culturally I was much more European. Ten years after I got married, I decided to take my children with me to Egypt and study the Islamic sciences. When I returned, I had the constant feeling that something was missing. I talked to many people who wanted to remain Muslim, but who felt an intimate contradiction between the wish and the practice: how can we be Muslim? Especially in France, the pressures on them were very strong; the headscarf issue started there as early as 1989. I realised that we needed two things: a rooted understanding of our religion, and a deeper understanding of the western environment. I started by exploring the Islamic teachings, rules and principles from within and to extract from them what was "universal". This was also a personal odyssey: remaining a Muslim in Switzerland meant that I could no longer simply draw on an Egyptian "belonging". I needed to explain two things, both to myself and to others. First, how was it possible to live these universal principles in a new context; second, how to link the insights from my study of western philosophy and political sciences to our universal values, preserving them at the same time as having a personality totally rooted in the European? I soon realised that there were major obstacles, beginning with a very superficial understanding of Islam. To remain a good Muslim in Europe, one felt obliged to be a Pakistani Muslim or a North African Muslim. This was a real limitation for me. But at the same time, it was an experience I shared with the grassroots Muslim organisations, Muslim leaders and the people they led. To create bridges between these two realities is to risk being criticised by both sides. But the great majority of Muslim organisations - in what I call a silent revolution - are facing this challenge. Among them are many Muslim women. During the last year, I trained more than 300 Muslim leaders, many of them women. It is going to be difficult and slow, but this is the future - because it is the only way to respect ourselves and the other too. When people like what I am doing they say: "Your ideas are great; but you are alone!" When they don't like it they say: "be careful of this man because behind him there are huge numbers of people!" The reality is that I am at the forefront of a process that is coming from the Muslim leaders themselves. A matter of perception Q: Your project seems to lead in two different directions. First, it involves reforms you would like to see in western countries. Second, it requires an auto-critique of the Muslim "way of life" in its broadest sense. So you are walking a rather precarious tightrope, where you risk alienating people on all sides? A: Yes, but the main focus of my critique is not European societies, where I see no obstacle to Muslims remaining Muslim, but on the way that Muslims' behaviour is governed by scriptural sources and a legal inheritance which has to be revisited. The question is: how should we read these sources, this legacy? What I call the reformist school of thought is not the literalist, the traditionalist or the rationalised one, or the Sufi version of the reformist path. Its central argument within the Islamic diversity of thinking is that because we live in a new context it is imperative that we reconsider our sources. We argue that we must grasp the texts and the contexts at one and the same time. For over fifteen years, I have tried to assess what room is available within the Islamic legacy to extract new thoughts and interpretations without sacrificing respect for our Qu'ran and the prophetic tradition. Not everything has yet been revealed. I believe that this silence, which encourages us to be creative is coming from God. I am not alone here; a whole religious and prophetic tradition tells us that it is from mercy that God remains silent on some subjects. Moreover, our new environment in Europe or the United States helps us to reread the sources. This is not, as some may think, an attempt to westernise Islam. As I see it, what I am doing is translating sharia, searching out the way towards faithfulness. This is not a question of law for me, but a way of remaining faithful to my beliefs and principles. This is my first and main concern. My secondary focus is on the way that this new phase for Muslims in Europe and the United States raises a question beyond integration, namely how we could be a richness for our societies and make a real contribution. This task has nothing to do with a critique of western mores. What I am saying, rather, is that if you have principles, you also have an ethnical code which arises from those principles. We can use those ethics as active citizens, to help work for the future betterment of "my society". What prevents us from becoming totally involved in our societies today is not legal frameworks, but a matter of perception. The very bad perception of Muslims determines the way that people read the law. If that perception changed, there is considerable latitude in European countries to respect Muslims - including their belief in their worship, and the practice of their faith. Four principles of Islamic identity Q: You draw attention there is an emphasis on "us" versus "them". This was perfectly normal as part of the geo-strategic reality during the Middles Ages. If you compare models, societies, even dress, such a polarisation can always be found. It is not just wrong in today's world, the message from our sources suggests that this is not the right approach. A superficial reading of models could lead to binary conclusions, but my reading of the sources is that their principles remain the same, even though their translation into any given culture or language may be different. If we go right back to the principles, we find that we have something in common. For example, I say that the west today, indeed the whole world, is Dar al-Shahada (the space where we bear testimony). The message to Muslims is: remain a Muslim if you want; bear witness to the message of your religion before people; this is as urgent in Europe as it is anywhere else! But I want to go beyond the perception that I am only different from you, or that difference is the beginning and the end. Yes, I am "different". But it is simply not sustainable to live with this notion that as citizens we differ more than we have in common. Within the Muslim community, it is my profound experience that such attitudes lead to psychological problems. Young Muslims in literalist groups are told: "Europe is not your home. It is Dar al-Harb (the realm of war). Its people are not Muslims". These people are defining Muslim identity in opposition, so that the less you are westernised the more you are Muslimised. They then require you to build your identity against others, not relying first and foremost on your own principles. This is why it is so important to say that the Muslim identity is not based on superficial principles. In my book To Be a European Muslim I showed how the four principles of Islamic identity are totally open: grace, practice and spirituality; religion (understanding the text and the context); education and transmission; action and participation. You can have any cultural dress - European, African, American or Asian - but these principles are open. I can come to Switzerland, or to French culture or literature, and take ownership of everything that does not contradict these principles. This reaches beyond the binary vision. I refer to it as the "principle of integration". Everything which is good is mine; if you have a bad idea, it remains yours! The source of a good idea doesn't matter: what is important is that it is good. This is what we need to understand first about our practical and daily lives. Q: Is this where you identify another trap, in relation to diversity, one you characterise as "minority thinking"? A: When you live in the European landscape and come to understand its social fabric, you are not a minority citizen. You are, simply, a citizen. This is where we must affirm that we have values that come from the Islamic tradition, and that these values are held in common with our fellow-citizens and with the whole of society. When I call for social justice to remove racism and discrimination from European societies, I am invoking majority not minority values. I spend a lot of time with green parties, discussing bio-ethics, social justice, discrimination and racism, precisely because I understand these problems we have in common. I am speaking here as a citizen-the same as you, and as much as you. I think that governments, and indeed the majority of the population, often try and push Muslims into speaking and feeling as minorities. The European Council for Fatwa and Research, set up in 1997, is an example. (To be continued) |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
