An open letter to Mister Tariq Ramadan,

Mister Ramadan,

Quite by chance we listened to the interview you gave BBC World-radio, last Saturday the 2nd of April 2005. Remembering that you are scheduled to address a gathering of both Muslim and non-Muslims in The Netherlands shortly, on the same topics that featured the interview, "Muslims in Europe" and "Coexistence with Muslims in Europe", in us you found yourself keen listeners that day.

It is under the guise of integration - such a gentle term as opposed to assimilation, though as of yet undefined in the minds of those who use it most, thereby not ruling out the probability that in fact assimilation is what is meant - that the Muslims in Europe are put under constant pressure to change their Islamic concepts regarding specific issues. Though previously unfamiliar with your thoughts and views regarding this matter, from your interview we take it you have openly joined in this chorus. Probably to the delight of many, as we write this you are on the verge of addressing a not insignificant gathering of mostly young spectators, on what exactly in your opinion is required of the Muslims who wish to coexist peacefully in the country they were born in. So for what is probably the first time in Dutch contemporary history, a prominent Muslim scholar has sided with what up to know were mostly non-Muslims addressing the Dutch Muslim community with a whole list of demands; prerequisites if the Muslims want to be part of mainstream life in the western European countries of their birth.

This, at least, is how we have understood the above-mentioned interview. On the topic of coexistence with Muslims in western societies you too are pointing to the term so loosely applied but so undefined in meaning, integration. Muslims, you say, should accept the fact that they are living in secular societies, and should integrate and become Dutch Muslims, or Belgian Muslims, et cetera, instead of North Africans or Arabs living in Europe. We have to say, we are not of those who would hold an opinion on the identity others should define themselves by - perhaps the influence growing up in a liberal democracy has had on us -, but in any case, it is not this statement of yours we wanted to address. This, namely, regards the way in which you consider integration to be facilitated. You state, after making a differentiation between what you term "primary Islam" and "secondary Islam", that in light of the need for integration a renewed interpretation of the Islamic religious texts regarding this "secondary Islam" is required, one that takes the current environment of European Muslims into consideration.

(We would like to point out that this differentiation of yours, considering certain elements of Islam primary with others secondary, is strikingly similar to the way man non-Muslims have preached vis-à-vis the Muslim community in The Netherlands, arguing for the establishment of a European Islam that recognises the separation of church and state, irrespective of whether this is acceptable from the Islamic perspective or not.)

In the interview, you assigned everything that in western view could be considered part of religion as primary Islam - the salat, zakat, ramadan, hadj -, whereas all other components of the way of life that is Islam - the hudood and more general the Islamic penal system you gave as an example - you considered secondary Islam. You contended that with regards to secondary Islam, Muslim thought has been dominated by literal interpretations of the religious texts, and that literal interpretations of the religious texts are wrong. Also, you mentioned that in your opinion, through interpreting these same texts in an other-than-literal manner, or figuratively, Islamic views would result that would be more compatible with western secular views, through which the relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim in the West would be improved. Regarding the Islamic penal code, you gave as an example that the relevant texts there should be interpreted as to mean "justice" and not so much as dictating actions, as one would be lead to believe when understanding them literally.

During your stay in our country, mister Ramadan, you will find us in direct opposition to these ideas we expect you will be presenting. They, in our opinion, are false both from the Islamic perspective as well as from a more general practical perspective. For this reason, and in appreciation of the significance some Muslims attach to your words; the esteem they hold your opinions in; and the affect they allows these to have on their own thoughts and actions, we considered it only proper to address you directly through a letter, to expand on our reasons for objecting to your message of change.

Allow us to set out the arguments behind the statement that from an Islamic perspective your ideas on the subject "coexistence with Muslims in the West" are false, through a few bullet points, after a brief introduction into the matter of "interpretation".

It needs to be clear that a differentiation needs to be made between what is understanding a text, and what is interpreting a text. Interpretation is relevant only when it is not fully clear what the text means to say. Through interpretation, namely, one attempts to explain what might not be obvious a first sight. "Interpretation ist der Versuch Herr über etwas zu werden", said Nietzsche. Not specific to religious texts, it is common to find that a text when taken literally can be said to have multiple meanings. However, this need not always be the case. It is when a text from the literal perspective could have various different meanings, that when one the attempt to retrieve the meaning of the text given to it by the originator of the text, one is engaged in what is understood to be "interpreting the text". Here to talk of "literal interpretations" versus "other-than-literal interpretations" is, of course, nonsense. The interpretation would aim at determining from the range of possible literal meanings of the text, the meaning intended by the originator of the text. In case literally the text can be understood to have just a single meaning, it need not be that this is the meaning that the originator of the text wants to have come across. Consider for instance sarcasm as an expression hereof. Here too is room for interpretation of the text: even though in the literal sense it knows just one meaning, from its context or other relevant foreknowledge one can learn that the literal meaning is not the meaning the originator of the text wants to have come across. Of course, on the topic of interpretation, the fourth category of texts would consist of those that in the literal sense could have various meanings, for all / some of which it is considered possible that the actual meaning is different from the literal meaning.

1. Regarding Islam, it knows all four types of texts. It is a fact that certain religious texts, when taken literally, carry with themselves various possible meanings. But, it is also a fact that this is not always the case. There are a number of verses in the Holy Koran that in the literal sense can be attributed just a single meaning, and whose context does not indicate even the possibility of something else being meant by the originator of the text, Allah, nor does there exist anything in other religious texts that might lead one to suspect the actual meaning of this text is other than the literal meaning. Regarding these texts, the originator of the text left no room for any interpretation, neither literal nor other-than-literal, as he left no doubt regarding what is meant. Regarding these texts it would be false to call for a renewed interpretation, as the texts leave no room for any interpretation at all.

2. For the Islamic religious texts that in the literal sense could have various meanings, it is through ijtihad that Muslim scholars attempt to find the meaning attributed to the text by the originator of the text. Here to talk of something like "literal interpretation" is nonsense, as all interpretations base themselves on what, when taken literally, the text could mean.

3. Regarding the texts for which context or other relevant foreknowledge does indicate the possibility of something other than the literal meaning being meant by the originator of the text, examples of such texts are the ones where Allah's commands indicate the goal of the action that is to be performed. Here the question is, is the command related to the action set out (literal interpretation), or to achievement of the goal (figurative interpretation)? Here some Muslim-scholars have argued that what is meant is the literal meaning, where others have held another opinion. Though it is an idea much liked by those engaged in attempts to influence Muslim thought, you are false to state that literal interpretations of these religious texts is dominating Muslim views and opinions. Though not unfamiliar to Islamic thought, we beg you to staff your contention that literal interpretation of the sacred texts has so far dominated Muslim thought. Firstly, as the literal interpretation is so obviously absent in the jurisprudence of the great mujtahid Imans and founders of the predominant schools of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), notably Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Imam Malik and Imam abu Hanifa. Not even amongst the prominent contemporary Islamic scholars the literal interpretation of the texts is predominant, as is clear in the works of for instance Taquiddeen an-Nabhani. And secondly, as it is a well established fact, proven by any review of Usul al-Fiqh, that long before the West in fact it were the Muslims that first understood that being able to proper understand a texts requires more than understanding the literal meaning of the text. Semantics, "linguistic context" and "context of situation" are all terms and techniques discovered and developed by the Muslims.

4. On your statement that the literal interpretations are all false, for the sake of argument let us ignore the fact that you did not specify for exactly what type of texts you consider this to be the case. Whether the meaning of the text given to it by originator of the text would be found by understanding it literally or through any other-than-literal interpretations, this is known only by the one from whom the texts originates. He, therefore, is the one who can decide the method to be applied when his texts leave room for interpretation. Here it would be wise to recall the hadith saheeh in al-Bukhari, where it is reported that the Prophet sent a group of Muslims out to travel to Bani Quraidha, instructing them to delay performing the salat until they reached their destination. Some of the companions of the Prophet interpreted his saying as an instruction to hurry, so they hastened themselves while still taking the time to perform the adh-Dhuhr and al-Asr prayers along the way. Others interpreted his saying literally and only performed both prayers until after reaching their destination, by when the time for salat al-Maghrib had already begun. When word of this difference in understanding of the Prophet's saying under his companions reached the Prophet, he remained silent. From this, as his remaining silent must be understood as consent, results the verdict that both a literal and an other than literal interpretation of the text is allowed. This means that neither the literal interpretation nor the other-than-literal interpretation can be set aside as incorrect pre-hand.

As set out, the aim of interpretation is to determine the meaning of the text given to it by the one from whom the text originates. In your interview you stated that a new interpretation of some of the religious texts is required in light of the fact that the circumstances of Muslims in the West is so markedly different than those faced by the Muslims who first attempted to understand the religious texts. Besides, you contended that an interpretation should take into consideration the circumstances faced by the interpreter, and that a new interpretation which takes into consideration the circumstances or Muslims in the West will help integration of these Muslims into the western societies.

5. As interpretation is the search for the meaning of the text given to it by the originator of the text, to state that this meaning depends on the circumstances of the one performing the ijtihad is clear nonsense. It implies that what the originator of the text meant depends on the one studying the text, and it implies that the meaning of the text given to it by the originator of the text, can vary over time and over individuals. Both over time and across individuals the same text would have different meanings, as the circumstances faced by an individual undoubtedly change over time, while at the same time the circumstances for no two individuals are the same. Both logical conclusions are in clear conflict with common understanding by the Muslims of Islam. A fair statement irrespective of whether the Muslims referred to are the companions of the Prophet (Sahaba), the followers of the companions of the Prophet (Tabieen), the followers of the followers of the companions of the Prophet (Tabi-tabieen), or contemporary Muslims.
 
6. The process for determining the Islamic verdict on a certain issue aims at finding the verdict of Allah, the originator of the religious texts, regarding the issue. The religious texts of Islam are sensibly the sources from which man can retrieve the opinions held by the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. As such, ijtihad should be performed without individual circumstances influencing the understanding of the text, as this can only cause the understanding of the text to deviate from the meaning given to the text by its originator, Allah. As the opinion of the originator is sought in the text, the interpretation should not - as you contend - in any way be influenced by the circumstances faced by the individual performing the ijtihad. The individuals' circumstances may change the relevance of certain texts, and as circumstances change so might the text from which a specific verdict should be extracted, but never should the circumstance of an individual be of influence to the understanding of a text.

7. The examples you give for which you consider a new interpretation required, all fall in the category of religious texts for which can be said that literally the text can be said to have just a single meaning, without anything in the context or in other sources of knowledge indicating an actual meaning other than the literal meaning. What other meanings would you have attributed to statements such as:

"And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (TMQ al Maidah, 38)

, or

"This is a chapter which We have revealed and made obligatory and in which We have revealed clear communications that you may be mindful. As for the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement." (TMQ an Nur, 1 - 2)

Please be so kind as to expand on your arguments for stating that the originator of the text had a meaning in mind other than the one that is clear in the text.

8. Lastly, you leave completely left unexplored the boundaries for new interpretations. You talk of primary and secondary Islam, as though ignorant of the fact that such terms and understandings are, and always have been, completely absent in the minds the Muslims. What exactly, therefore, would be your criterion for determining whether a new interpretation would be required or not; in effect, what is your criterion for separating primary from secondary Islam? Somebody might argue that salat does not mean what has always been understood and put into practice, arguing it should be taken figuratively, symbolising the need for purification of the psyche and mentality. Would this be acceptable to you?

All this should leave no doubt that when you argue for a renewed interpretation of the Islamic religious texts, to take into consideration contemporary circumstances, you are mistaken. When you talk of primary versus secondary Islam, but especially when you argue in favour of reinterpretation of texts that in themselves leave no room for any interpretation, it is clear that what effectively you are arguing for is a change in Islam, and not for improved understanding of Islam. The argument you introduce to protect yourself from having to face up to - well founded - accusations such as these, namely that the circumstances the Muslims in the West are facing are new and different from anything seen before, ignores the fact that the residing of a Muslim in Dar al Kufr has since long been an area of study for the scholars of Islam. Even, it is nothing new for Muslims to reside in Dar al Kufr. In the example of the Muslims who performed the first migration away from Mekkah to present day Ethiopia before the Hidjra to Medinah, for instance, you will find a valuable source for Islamic legislation on this contemporary issue.

However, that we turn down your call for a change to our beloved Islam should not be understood as a rejection from our side to coexist with non-Muslim in the West. And it does not mean to say that work on improving the relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim in the western societies should not be undertaken. However, and this is why we argue that also from a practical perspective your thoughts and ideas on this matter are incorrect, this issue does not so much revolve around the ideas the Muslims currently hold as it does around the attitude in western societies concerning differences of opinion.

Even though the western societies themselves are founded on the idea that "truth" is relative, and that therefore opinions should be left free to vary, these days the Islamic ideas of the Muslims are considered a threat to the secular liberal democracies. But, it should be remembered that coexistence requires the existence of at least two groups, where groups are defined primarily on the basis of shared ideas. As such, the effort applied to changing the Islamic ideas of the Muslims in reality has nothing to do with facilitating coexistence, as it aims at ending the existence of different groups. Also, the generally held opinion in the western societies, that ideas need to be made common for coexistence to result, shows that at the moment there is no real desire from the "other side" to coexist with the Muslims. Acceptance of the Muslim community is made dependant on the Muslim willingness to move away from the Muslim identity, towards the more common secular identity: "I will accept you, but only if you become what I want you to become".

We, for one, are happy to say that in The Netherlands, at least, with the demands for changes to the Islamic ideas and opinions coming from non-Muslims, very few if any Muslims considered this path forward set out desirable. So it is very clear that in general, the Muslim in The Netherlands hold a markedly different opinion towards coexistence than the one on which you base your ideas regarding working for coexistence. Perhaps this is because the Muslims in The Netherlands understand better "coexistence" than you do, or perhaps they value more their Islamic identity than you do; who is to tell.

In The Netherlands just as in the rest of the world, mister Ramadan, there is a clear revival of Islam amongst Muslims. Perhaps the Muslims disagree amongst themselves regarding the huqm shar'ai on specific issues, as made clear this is justifiably so, a point well understood. Much more important is the fact that these days, it is (again) commonplace to find the ideas and arguments of Muslims based on solely the Islamic sources of legislation. In what can only be described as a recognition of this ideological revival amongst Muslims, in the run up to your visit to our country your views and opinions have been presented as a breakthrough. Finally the so desired change in the Muslims can be justified by pointing to the ideas and opinions of a renowned Muslim-scholar. But be aware, as the desires and ideas of the non-Muslims regarding the perfect Muslims have received very little attention amongst Muslims in this country, so will the ideas and opinions of those Muslims who do not base themselves on Islam.

If you care to work for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims during your stay in The Netherlands, a word of advice: why not tell your listeners that just as the non-Muslims wish to preserve their identity, to which they have every right, so do the Muslims desire to preserve their Islamic identity, with equal right. It is their only wish for Muslims to be respected in the West in the same manner as the Muslims themselves have always respected the Christians and Jews in the Islamic Lands. With your knowledge of Islam, wouldn't you agree that vision paints the most wonderful of pictures for the future of Muslims in the West?

On behalf of Expliciet, and the Muslim community in The Netherlands in general,

Sincerely yours,

Abdullah as Siddiq

www.expliciet.nl