Boston Globe on Tariq Ramadan

The reformer to his admirers, Tariq Ramadan is Europe’s leading advocate of liberal Islam. To his detractors, he’s a dangerous theocrat in disguise.

By Laura Secor

From the Boston Globe, 30 November 2003

When Tariq Ramadan delivers a lecture, the room is invariably packed to capacity. Afterwards, dozens of young Muslim men are likely to throng the stage, seeking his definitive guidance on everything from veiling to animal rights to how to live with dignity in a secular society.

“What I am doing with them is at the same time important and dangerous,” Ramadan says of his work with these young men. “It could be dangerous if you let them think you have the answers. I try to tell them, ‘I am not what I’m saying. I’m only trying to be.”‘

At age 41, Ramadan, an elegant, Swiss-born intellectual, imam, and activist, has become a magnet for young Muslims in France, Switzerland, and Belgium. He’s done it partly by making himself personally accessible to the devotees who purchase audiotapes of his lectures and often travel for miles just to hear him speak. And he’s also done it with his unstinting criticism of their community’s inclination toward insularity.

Outside the Muslim community, Ramadan is the object of both admiration and suspicion. He’s the Muslim Martin Luther, the American and French press have sometimes rhapsodized: He advocates that European Muslims use their unique experiences to lead a movement toward reform within Islam. He is “two-faced,” critics reply: He sounds like a moderate, having adopted a vocabulary that he knows will be accepted by secular Westerners, but he is actually herding Francophone Muslims down the path of extremism.

Continue reading

Critique of the (New) Communitarian Intellectuals

Critique of the (New) Communitarian Intellectuals

By Tariq Ramadan

From Oumma.com, 3 October 2003

The present text, published here exclusively, has been rejected by the journals Le Monde and Libération. This rejection, repeated five times in the case of Le Monde, is more than regrettable: “Muslim communitarianism” alone is attacked but there is resistance to accepting criticism of those intellectuals so dear to the media, who in articles and interviews endlessly serve us with analyses of French society and the international scene that are highly dubious and often biased. Taguieff, Adler, Finkielkraut, Glucksman, Kouchner, BHL, among others, proclaim the truth about the world, the good, the bad, “our allies” … and Israel, always, escapes their selective criticisms.

Continue reading

Islam not a threat to secularism: French Orientalist

Islam does not pose a threat to secularism and French Muslims are taking initiatives in coping with the country’s secular laws, French orientalist Bruno Etienne maintained. Speaking to IslamOnline.net, he said that France’s five million Muslims, a recognized minority, are expected to comply with the country’s secularism, which is rather a positive challenge for them.

“Etienne praised moderate Muslim youths and activists, like Tareq Ramadan, ‘for their earnest efforts in understanding and explaining true Islam, which will definitely play a key role in drawing up the future picture of Islam in Europe’.”

Islam Online, 30 September 2003

The Devil and Daniel Pipes

“Pipes has repeatedly demonstrated hostility toward Arabs and toward Islam as a religion,” says Mitchell Plitnick, co-director of the San Francisco-based Jewish Voice for Peace, one of several Jewish organizations that have mobilized against him. “Of equal concern is that Pipes has often espoused the view that force is the most appropriate solution to the problems in the Middle East and the Muslim world.”

In These Times, 8 September 2003

The battle of the veil

Laurent Levy, a Paris lawyer who describes himself as an atheist, has become a champion for the freedom of religious expression since Lila, 18, and Alma, 16, were barred from their lycée in the northern suburb of Aubervilliers.

The girls – whose mother is a non-observant Algerian – were told the manner in which they wore the headscarf was “ostentatious” and unsuitable for sports lessons. The school authorities also accused them of taking part in a demonstration in their defence by around a hundred fellow students.

AFP, 1 October 2003

See also BBC News, 1 October 2003

Pipes appointed to the United States Institute of Peace

On August 12, Churches for Middle East Peace sent an urgent action alert about reports of President Bush’s intentions to make a recess appointment of Daniel Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). CMEP thanks all those who made calls to the White House opposing this action. Unfortunately, the Associated Press has reported that on Friday, August 23, President Bush bypassed the Senate Committee and appointed Daniel Pipes to the board of the USIP.

CMEP report, 26 August 2003

Muslims declare moral victory in Pipes appointment

In a statement released this morning, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:

“While a defeat for democracy, the president’s backdoor appointment of Daniel Pipes is a moral victory for the tens of thousands of American Muslims, Arab-Americans, Christians, Jews, and civil rights activists who contacted the White House and the Senate since the nomination was announced in April.

“By issuing this recess appointment, the president acknowledges that Pipes’ nomination would have been turned down by the Senate, despite that body’s Republican majority. Without being approved by the Senate, Pipes will serve just 18 months of what would have been a four-year term.

“The campaign to defeat Pipes’ nomination and to expose his bigoted views also showed the Muslim and Arab-American communities that there are those in Congress who will stand up for what is right, despite tremendous political pressure to remain silent. At a July 23 Senate committee meeting on Pipes’ nomination, Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) all opposed the appointment. Sen. Harkin, who was involved in the formation of the USIP, spoke at length about Pipes’ statements warning of the ‘dangers’ posed by the enfranchisement of American Muslims and his ‘dossiers’ on academic critics of Israeli policies.

“Perhaps the most positive by-product of the campaign was the creation of a broad coalition of religious, ethnic, and civil liberties groups that will last long after Pipes takes his seat on the USIP board.”

CAIR news report, 25 August 2003

Pipes the propagandist

“I am not myself a pacifist, and I believe that Islamic nihilism has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire. But that is a position shared by a very wide spectrum of people. Pipes, however, uses this consensus to take a position somewhat to the right of Ariel Sharon, concerning a matter (the Israel-Palestine dispute) that actually can be settled by negotiation. And he employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him.”

Even Christopher Hitchens draws the line at Daniel Pipes.

Slate, 13 August 2003

A small victory in the battle against bigotry

“Arab Americans and American Muslims won a small but important moral victory in the battle against bigotry last week. A US Senate committee declined to vote on the confirmation of a controversial anti-Muslim polemicist who has been appointed by the Bush administration to serve on the Board of the US Institute of Peace (USIP)….

“The current board nominee in question, Daniel Pipes, has … pursued a career devoted largely to defaming Arabs and Muslims, inciting against them and promoting conflict between the West and the Muslim world. His extensive body of writings, for example, displays a near perverse obsession with all things Arab and Muslim.”

James Zogby at Antiwar.com, 5 August 2003

Daniel Pipes’ nomination stalled in committee

Members of the Senate committee charged with recommending Daniel Pipes to serve on the board of the US Institute for Peace (USIP) asked Chairman Judd Gregg for more time to gather more information on the “controversial nominee.”

Senator Edward Kennedy, in calling for more time, cited one of Pipes’ statements – “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene… All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.” (National Review, 11/19/90) Senator Kennedy ended by urging his colleagues to oppose Pipes’ nomination.

Baltimore Chronicle, 23 July 2003