Scholar treads common ground

Tariq Ramadan terms himself a reformist Muslim seeking seamless integration of old and new

Liberal Muslim or closet fundamentalist? Peaceful intellectual or militant in sheep's clothing? Tariq Ramadan has been called all these things - and more - by his friends and foes. Whatever the truth, the Swiss-born Oxford University professor ranks among the most influential thinkers in the Muslim world.

The grandson of the man who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, Ramadan drew attention of the United States in 2004 when he was denied a visa to take up a post at the University of Notre Dame because he had given money to a Swiss-based charity that the US later alleged had connections with Hamas. (In July, a federal appeals court ordered that Ramadan's case be revisited.)

Another controversy erupted in August when Ramadan was fired as an integration adviser to the Dutch city of Rotterdam, which said his hosting of a show on an Iranian state television network could be seen as an endorsement of the government.

Ramadan calls his dismissal a politically motivated decision to appease Rotterdam's anti-Muslim populist party.

Ramadan, 47, recently gave an interview in London, where he lives with his wife and their four children.

Excerpts:

Does working for and appearing on a television station run by the Iranian government, which many see as a propaganda tool of a repressive regime, bother you?

I took three months to decide to be involved in this. I talked to people who are not all supportive ... people who were jailed in Iran, people who are against [the government]. They told me: 'Look, if they are giving you this window to come [up] with your ideas, to [disseminate] your interpretations, do it'. ... I'm not ... at all someone ... who is through this programme supporting the regime. I am a free intellectual. What I want people to see and assess is the programme itself, to watch the programme. You will see I am inviting ... rabbis, priests, women with headscarves, without headscarves and having an open discussion.

Can you, and have you, criticised the Iranian government on this programme?

It is not a political programme. The programme is philosophical [and] religious ... on [Quranic] interpretations and contemporary issues dealing with religion and philosophy.

You have been called a liberal Muslim reformist and an Islamist in sheep's clothing, with ties to extremist and militant thinkers and groups. How do you describe yourself?

I am a reformist Muslim; I am a reformist scholar ... I take the Quran seriously. For me, these are texts that are Islamic reference. But I'm also facing the contemporary world, so it is a dialectical process between being faithful to universal principles and to take history and context into account.

Critics say you have made equivocal statements on women's rights, failed to condemn stoning as a punishment and referred to the September 11 attacks and the Madrid attacks as an "intervention". How do you respond?

My position on the death penalty, stoning and corporal punishment is quite clear. There are texts in the Quran and in the prophetic tradition referring to this. But I have three questions to ask Muslim scholars around the world: What do the texts say, what are the conditions to implement [the punishment] and in which context? As long as you don't come with a clear answer to this, it is unimplementable because what we are doing now is betraying Islam by targeting poor people and women.

You have been accused of saying one thing for Western, liberal, non-Muslim audiences and another thing - more dogmatic, conservative and possibly extremist - for Muslim ears. Is your message the same to both communities?

If this was the case, would I be banned [not only] in the United States but also [in] Saudi Arabia?

So what is your message?

My message [has] different levels and different dimensions. ... In the West, I am talking about 'post-integration discourse'. Integration is over. We are American, we are Canadian, we are European. And we are Muslims. The point for us now is not to integrate; it is to contribute. What we want for our fellow citizens is [to recognise] that Muslims are their fellow equal citizens, which is not [yet] the case. We are still "the others". ... In Muslim-majority countries, [my message] is to promote ... emancipation and liberation [from] anything that has to do with dictatorship and to promote five main principles: rule of law, equal citizenship, universal suffrage, accountability and separation of powers.

How would you see a Muslim democratic state as different from a Western secular democratic state? What would it look like?

I don't know because I don't have a model. For me, talking about an Islamic state in the [abstract] doesn't mean anything. What I want for every single society is to respect these five principles ... I am sure that the Egyptian model will be different from the Iraqi model, and the Iraqi model will be different from the Saudi Arabian model.

Do you feel there is more mistrust of the West by Muslim-majority countries or more mistrust of Muslims by Western countries?

I think it is the same ... [For] Western Muslims and Muslims in Muslim-majority countries the perception is that the West has an agenda to dominate us. There is nurturing, sometimes, [of] a victim mentality. We have also a victim mentality in the West. ... I'm saying to the Muslims, 'Stop with the victim mentality ... [which] is nurturing this sense of alienation.' And to the West, it is also saying, 'To come to a better understanding; it is a question of mutual education and respect."