Jens Tomas Anfindsen in Dagbladet: The Janus face of Euroislam, about Tariq Ramadan. Update: Øyvind Strømmen replies.

Well, while repeating the usual stuff Anfindsen incredibly manages to err on as basic things as claiming that Hassan al-Banna left Egypt to seek refugee in Switzerland (He died over a decade before Said Ramadan, Tariqs father, came to the country).

Anfindsen should start by getting basic facts right (this has been corrected in his article published on his own website). Hassan al-Banna never went to Switzerland, he died years before his daughter and son-in-law arrived in 1961.

"Anfindsen incredibly manages to err on as basic things as blah blah blah" - well, that would explain of course why he gets the whole thing wrong. I think. Then again, I'm just a dilettante.

True enough, I am a dilettante, I do not pretend to be an expert on an area I am not.

Unlike some other people, though, I believe that the person best qualified to say something about what Tariq Ramadan thinks is... Tariq Ramadan, and not some unnamed source blabbering on about kitman, a concept which - of course - means something quite different than what Anfindsen and his unnamed source hints at.

Anyway, the use of an unnamed source who you let attack the person you want to discredit yourself, is the most coward and pathetic form of political debate. Instead of using unnamed sources I would like to see Anfindsen do what you want me to do; to attack or debate Ramadans actual statements. But no; much easier to just brand your opponent as an extremist in hiding, a man with a janus face, representing a janus-faced religion.

Like the Evening Standard recently; who claimed that Tariq Ramadan has supported suicide attacks, which he has not, and that he is "among the extremists urging violence for Islam" and quoting Ramadan to have said merely: "In Palestine, Chechnya there is oppression. It is legitimate for Muslims to resist fascism", when he did say:

"In Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, there is a situation of oppression, repression and dictatorship. It is legitimate for Muslims to resist fascism that kills innocent people. But the assassination and the kidnapping of civilians are illegitimate means of a legitimate resistance".

It is right, however, that Ramadan has called for a moratorium on corporeal punishment, stoning and indeed the death penalty in the Islamic world. There are at least two ways to interpret that.

You can believe that Ramadan does indeed support the death penalty, stoning and corporeal punishment, and his call for moratorium is just pretend play for the European public. This is apparently Anfindsens point-of-view.

Alternatively you can believe that Ramadan actually is trying to achieve something; namely to stop the use of death penalty, stoning and corporeal punishment, but that he chooses to front this as a moratorium, believing that he has a greater chance at succeeding if he does.

To come closer to understanding what Tariq Ramadan means, it might be a good beginning to read what he writes.

An International call for Moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World
Première publication : 30 March 2005, mise en ligne: Tuesday 5 April 2005, by Tariq RAMADAN

...........in the above essay, 2-face islamo-front man extraordinaire, Tariq Ramadan wrote a most erudite and stirring essay on the need for a moratorium on corporal pnishment, stoning, death pnalty blah blah blah....very nice paper...but that's just it....something to excite western academcians and occasional dilettantes, but in reality an idea that is good on paper but destined for failure and impractical. Islam is an intransigent monster with a built in logic-defying loop that does not permit change. The ones that Tariq's idea need to reach are the the teeming masses of illiterate and half-illiterate masses of islamdom - which are also the majority/bulwark of islamdom which fervently support the harsh aspects of Shari'ah. No alim/ulama worth his weight in camel dung will dare engage in such avant-garde interpretation of the hudud laws -- preservation of one's prestige and draconian control of the masses after all are hallmarks of the alims and ulamas.

Soooo....once again , i would just chalk all this one more empty rhetoric in his armamentarium of propagandist tricks , nothing substantial, but perhaps something sufficiently scholarly enough to excite the optimistic fantasies of some naive westerners and sundry dilettantish occidental (pseudo?)journalists.

...more on Tariq Ramadan--->http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004430.php

...a little excerpt:

".... He wants to see the islamization of Europe. He thinks that Europeans suffer from a "spiritual emptiness" and that they are ripe for wonderful Islam. He has said that "the West is in decline, and the Arab-Islamic world is on the road to renewal" -- yet that "renewal," he believes, will take place when Islam conqueres, through his kind of Da'wa. His Da'wa, of course, is far more cunning, with far more roses than guns, than the Da'wa of Qaradawi, or of Sheikh Tantawi, and of course than the threats of Bin Laden, Zarqawi, et al.

But the goal of Ramadan is the goal of Bin Laden and indeed of all Believers: the victory of dar al-Islam over dar al-Harb, the removal of all obstacles in the dar al-Harb to the spread of Islam, and the subjugation of all non-Muslims -- who will be subjugated, as they have always been subjugated over 1350 years of Muslim ...."

Sister Aishah Nyanyaponika Kim
bona-fide specialist in irrational adamikkk kkkults

Stepping in late with some replies:

1) The title of my article is ”The Janus face of Euroislam?” – with a question mark. The purpose of the question mark is to guard some ambiguity with regard to the assessments the article makes on Tariq Ramadan. As will become manifest to anyone who engages herself with the teachings of Ramadan, ambiguity turns out to be a key concept.

2) Sometimes one just has to concede criticism unconditionally. And yes, Mechelen is quite right in pointing out that it was Ramadan’s father, not his grandfather which immigrated to Switzerland. Since Ramadan’s grandfather happens to be the founder of The Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, and since it is obligatory knowledge that al-Banna was assassinated in Egypt in 1949, Mechelen is right in pointing out that this is erring on basic stuff. I can do nothing but apologize and express my gratitude to Mechelen for being kind enough to point have that I have indeed corrected this in HonestThinking’s publication of the article (Norwegian; an English translation can be expected in some days time).

That being said, several other of Mechelen’s comments need correction:

3) Mechelen objects that my employment of the term “kitman” is misleading. Firstly, what the article says about kitman is being said by the subject who is being interviewed, not me. Secondly, what this person says (a theology professor with extensive knowledge on Islam) appears to me to be extremely precise and right to the point. The point is that Tariq Ramadan professes an islamicist version of Islam in which islamization of all levels of society stands as an ultimate, global goal. While this is expressed in Ramadans deeper, more philosophical works, his popular discourse either underplays this aspect of his thinking, or expresses it in a vernacular which is shrouded with misleading ambiguities. So why would Ramadan not speak frankly to the lay public about islamicist philosophy? Well, the reason is probably found in the Islamic concept of kitman, which means “to hide” or “to conceal”, and which is held to be applicable in situations where some Islamic cause is under preparation, but where revealing it would obstruct its attainment.

HonestThinking has just published an article about kitman which explains the Islamic foundations of the concept in some more detail.

It is perhaps also worth pointing out, here, how Ramadan conceives of Islamic societal reform as taking place through various phases. Drawing on the teachings of Yussuf al-Quaradawi, Ramdan explains how Islamic reform must be effected in stages (fiqh al-awlawiyyat). There being little sense in conducting an Islamic revolution in a society which is not ripe for it, the “call to islam” (da’wa) must first seek to reform the individual, then the family, then society, and only finally and lastly, the state. It is in the early phases of this process of reform that kitman would have a particular application.

4) Though sub-optimal, I referred to an anonymous source because my interviewee required me to do so. I do have written documentation of the interview. Let me point out that several academics nowadays only give public statements on The Muslim Brotherhood on condition of anonymity. Anyway, if Mechelen do not trust my source and thinks that I have just conjured up the whole thing, the point being made may still be evaluated objectively, but I cannot see that Mechelen is even in the neighborhood of doing so.

5) In an emission of BBC’s “Hard Talk, Tariq Ramadan did defend Yussuf al-Qaradawi’s support for Palestinian suicide bombers.

6) Regarding the moratorium on hudud penalties, Mechelen pretends as if there are two alternatives: Either Ramdan just acts as if he is against them (a view he mistakenly attributes to me), or he is really against them. But these are not exhaustive alternatives. A third alternative is that Ramdan simply means what he says, namely that the Islamic umma should temporarily ban all corporeal punishments while conducting a thorough discussion on the proper social conditions for their application.

7) I should like to challenge Mechelen on two questions:
(a) Can Mechelen mention one point of doctrine where Ramadan deviates from mainstream Muslim Brotherhood views?
(b) Can Mechelen mention one significant point of doctrine where he considers Ramadan’s concept of Islamic reform as promising?

Jens Tomas Anfindsen
Editor, HonestThinking

Thanks for replying, Anfindsen. First of all, my name is not Mechelen, that is the city where I live. If you want to use my last name, it is Strømmen. Let me shortly comment on your points:

1. I know that you have left some ambiguity in your title. The tone of your article, however, seems quite clear; you are suggesting that Tariq Ramadan is a "janus face". You have repeated this claim through your interpretation of the concept kitman.

3. It is irrelevant that your source is a theology professor. First of all, because theology is not the study of Islam, so he does not even work for an "expert drop", secondly because any theology professor or religious history professor can be just as wrong about "kitman" or "taqiyya" as anyone else. Thirdly, because he is still an unnamed source. If you are going to namedrop theology professors, at least have some named theology professors ready.

I am glad, however, that you refer to IslamOnline (in the HonestThinking article) in this case, because IO is not saying quite what your dear theology professor is saying, are they? You are however, quite right, that there are hadith supporting the idea of finishing something in hiding. This is not the same as misleading the infidels by not expressing your true goals (an idea that is abhorrable in the eyes of theologians that do play a role in Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist understanding).

That is where your theology professors forces a interpretation of the concept on it that the concept - as far as I can see - historically have hardly had. Naming a few hadiths were the word kitman is used does not really change that.

That being said; hadith is a collection of sayings that are not purely religious, but also judicial, and some of these saying do allow lying in certain situations, for instance in outright warfare. These are not connected to the concept of kitman, though.

5. Please provide a link, and a quote of what he actually said.

6. Anfindsen is quite right; that is a possibility. I said "at least two ways to interpret", a key element being "at least", since I think it is quite difficult to give exhaustive alternatives here.

7.

a) Tariq Ramadan seems to be placed within in the diversity of opinions that you will find within the Muslim Brotherhood historically and today, although his opinions are sometimes differing from the views of prominent Brotherhood members or affiliates.

b) Indeed. His call for a moratorium on death penalty, stoning and corporeal punishment - one of our main point of discussion here - is promising. Some Muslim countries have abandoned death penalty, but many have not, and some are amongst the worst perpetrators of this human rights violation internationally. Some of his views on other religions are promising. So is some of his views on democracy.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1626